Downtown/Midtown Properties L. L. C. v. P.A. Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downtown/Midtown Properties L. L. C. v. P.A. Building Co.

287 A.D.2d 395, 731 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 395 (Downtown/Midtown Properties L. L. C. v. P.A. Building Co.) 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

Downtown/Midtown Properties L. L. C. v. P.A. Building Co., 287 A.D.2d 395, 731 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 1, 2000, which, as amended by order of the same court and Justice, entered October 17, 2000, granted the motion of defendant-respondent tenant Metropolitan Fiber Systems of New York, Inc. for summary judgment upon its reimbursement claim and denied the cross motion of defendant-appellant prior owner P.A. Building for summary judgment with respect to said claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this interpleader action brought by the current building owner to determine whether the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of a portion of payments made by the tenant for its initial construction work readying the premises for its occupancy, affirmance is mandated based on our recent decision in Barnes & Noble v 111 Eighth Ave. (283 AD2d 220), which involved a similar stipulation and transactional documents for the leasing of premises in and the sale of the same building. It is therefore unnecessary to consider appellant’s other contentions. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 1, 2000, which, as amended by order of the same court and Justice, entered October 17, 2000, granted the motion of defendant-respondent tenant Metropolitan Fiber Systems of New York, Inc. for summary judgment upon its reimbursement claim and denied the cross motion of defendant-appellant prior owner P.A. Building for summary judgment with respect to said claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this interpleader action brought by the current building owner to determine whether the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of a portion of payments made by the tenant for its initial construction work readying the premises for its occupancy, affirmance is mandated based on our recent decision in Barnes & Noble v 111 Eighth Ave. (283 AD2d 220), which involved a similar stipulation and transactional documents for the leasing of premises in and the sale of the same building. It is therefore unnecessary to consider appellant’s other contentions. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 395, 731 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downtownmidtown-properties-l-l-c-v-pa-building-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack