Empire State Garage Corp. v. Taigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire State Garage Corp. v. Taigman

281 A.D. 872, 119 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 872 (Empire State Garage Corp. v. Taigman) 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

Empire State Garage Corp. v. Taigman, 281 A.D. 872, 119 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

— In this action by a tenant for the recovery of rental paid in excess of the ceilings fixed by the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, eh. 3, as amd.) the Special Term has stricken out defenses based on a purported arbitration award authorizing the higher rental. The Special Term was correct in holding that the award was not valid in form. In the facts disclosed, however, the defense of estoppel could be available to the landlord on a proper showing based on the defective arbitration decision which seems to have had contemporary acceptance and was acted on by both sides. Appellant argues that one of [873]*873the stricken defenses does plead estoppel, but it is clear that what is pleaded is not estoppel but a “ bar ” against “ applying for the vacation ” of the award. This is an attempt to plead the case within Matter of Heidelberger {Cooper), (300 N. T. 502), which does not apply to general estoppel. An estoppel is not clearly pleaded. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to defendant to replead unequivocally the defense of estoppel. Settle order on notice. Order [denying defendant’s motion for judgment on pleadings, etc.] unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

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

— In this action by a tenant for the recovery of rental paid in excess of the ceilings fixed by the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, eh. 3, as amd.) the Special Term has stricken out defenses based on a purported arbitration award authorizing the higher rental. The Special Term was correct in holding that the award was not valid in form. In the facts disclosed, however, the defense of estoppel could be available to the landlord on a proper showing based on the defective arbitration decision which seems to have had contemporary acceptance and was acted on by both sides. Appellant argues that one of [873]*873the stricken defenses does plead estoppel, but it is clear that what is pleaded is not estoppel but a “ bar ” against “ applying for the vacation ” of the award. This is an attempt to plead the case within Matter of Heidelberger {Cooper), (300 N. T. 502), which does not apply to general estoppel. An estoppel is not clearly pleaded. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to defendant to replead unequivocally the defense of estoppel. Settle order on notice. Order [denying defendant’s motion for judgment on pleadings, etc.] unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 872, 119 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-state-garage-corp-v-taigman-nyappdiv-1953.