Curry v. 365 West 19th Street Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curry v. 365 West 19th Street Owners Corp.

249 A.D.2d 82, 671 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 82 (Curry v. 365 West 19th Street Owners Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. 365 West 19th Street Owners Corp., 249 A.D.2d 82, 671 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 16, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we disagree with the IAS Court’s denial of summary judgment by reason of the “law of the case”, since there was no legal determination on the merits in the prior Yellowstone proceeding determinative of plaintiffs standing to maintain the present action respecting the validity of the parties’ lease and their rights thereunder (see, Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245), summary judgment was nonetheless properly denied. A review of the record discloses triable issues respecting the validity of the subject lease and, accordingly, as to plaintiffs standing. Such issues include whether plaintiff diligently attempted to cure her default under the lease by seeking eviction of the residential subtenants and whether she subsequently cured the defect constituted by their occupancy by duly obtaining an amended certificate of occupancy. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 16, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we disagree with the IAS Court’s denial of summary judgment by reason of the “law of the case”, since there was no legal determination on the merits in the prior Yellowstone proceeding determinative of plaintiffs standing to maintain the present action respecting the validity of the parties’ lease and their rights thereunder (see, Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245), summary judgment was nonetheless properly denied. A review of the record discloses triable issues respecting the validity of the subject lease and, accordingly, as to plaintiffs standing. Such issues include whether plaintiff diligently attempted to cure her default under the lease by seeking eviction of the residential subtenants and whether she subsequently cured the defect constituted by their occupancy by duly obtaining an amended certificate of occupancy. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 82, 671 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-365-west-19th-street-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack