Decker v. Chuang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Decker v. Chuang

185 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 613 (Decker v. Chuang) 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

Decker v. Chuang, 185 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in ordering respondent to pay petitioner rent and other charges [614]*614due to petitioner from his tenant. The tenant was not a party to this proceeding. Respondent was the tenant’s sublessee. Petitioner was not in privity of contract because he was not a party to the lease between respondent and the tenant. In addition, because the tenant retained a reversionary interest in the sublease with respondent, there was no privity of estate between petitioner and respondent (see, New Amsterdam, Cas. Co. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 266 NY 254). Because there was no privity between petitioner and respondent, petitioner cannot recover rent and other charges from respondent (see, Tefft v Apex Pawnbroking & Jewelry Co., 75 AD2d 891; see also, Stewart v Long Is. R. R. Co., 102 NY 601; 74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 719). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Eviction.) Present—Denman, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in ordering respondent to pay petitioner rent and other charges [614]*614due to petitioner from his tenant. The tenant was not a party to this proceeding. Respondent was the tenant’s sublessee. Petitioner was not in privity of contract because he was not a party to the lease between respondent and the tenant. In addition, because the tenant retained a reversionary interest in the sublease with respondent, there was no privity of estate between petitioner and respondent (see, New Amsterdam, Cas. Co. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 266 NY 254). Because there was no privity between petitioner and respondent, petitioner cannot recover rent and other charges from respondent (see, Tefft v Apex Pawnbroking & Jewelry Co., 75 AD2d 891; see also, Stewart v Long Is. R. R. Co., 102 NY 601; 74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 719). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Eviction.) Present—Denman, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-chuang-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack