Duell v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duell v. Roberts

232 A.D.2d 301, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10494

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 301 (Duell v. Roberts) 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

Duell v. Roberts, 232 A.D.2d 301, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Appellate Term, First Department (Stanley Ostrau, P. J., Edith Miller and William McCooe, JJ.), entered March 30, 1995, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jose Rodriguez, J.), entered March 28, 1994, denying petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees, and which granted such motion and remanded the matter for a hearing to determine the reasonable value thereof, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Appellate Term properly found, on the basis of the terms of the last lease between the parties containing an attorney’s fees clause, that Civil Court had erred in denying such an award where landlord was the prevailing party in a holdover proceeding (see, Cier Indus. Co. v Hessen, 136 AD2d 145; Museum of Modern Art v Kirk, 111 Misc 2d 1074, 1076). Tenant was on notice that the losing party could be assessed the legal fees of the prevailing party given the terms of the parties’ last lease (see, Real Property Law § 234). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Appellate Term, First Department (Stanley Ostrau, P. J., Edith Miller and William McCooe, JJ.), entered March 30, 1995, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jose Rodriguez, J.), entered March 28, 1994, denying petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees, and which granted such motion and remanded the matter for a hearing to determine the reasonable value thereof, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Appellate Term properly found, on the basis of the terms of the last lease between the parties containing an attorney’s fees clause, that Civil Court had erred in denying such an award where landlord was the prevailing party in a holdover proceeding (see, Cier Indus. Co. v Hessen, 136 AD2d 145; Museum of Modern Art v Kirk, 111 Misc 2d 1074, 1076). Tenant was on notice that the losing party could be assessed the legal fees of the prevailing party given the terms of the parties’ last lease (see, Real Property Law § 234). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 301, 648 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duell-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack