Dental Management & Development, Inc. v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center

68 A.D.3d 621, 892 N.Y.2d 340

Opinion

Because the agreement between two dentists utilizing the basement premises did not result in a complete surrender of the demised premises from one to the other, or a grant of exclusive use to the purported sub-subtenant, the agreement constituted a license rather than an unauthorized sub-sublease (cf. Matter of Dodgertown Homeowners Assn. v City of New York, 235 AD2d 538, 539 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 809 [1997]). In regard to the contention that there was an illegal fee-splitting arrangement, we note that neither notice to cure raised this as a violation, nor is this a fee-splitting agreement in violation of Education Law § 6509-a. As to the waiting room, which was subdivided into two sections without visible demarcation, the use of the [622] entire common space by plaintiff’s dental patients, including defendant’s portion of the undivided area, did not constitute a breach of the sublease between plaintiff and defendant.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Dental Management & Development, Inc. v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, 68 A.D.3d 621, 892 N.Y.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 621 (Dental Management & Development, Inc. v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dodgertown Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of New York
235 A.D.2d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)