Enak Realty Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enak Realty Corp. v. City of New York

109 A.D.2d 814, 486 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47323

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 814 (Enak Realty Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Enak Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 109 A.D.2d 814, 486 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated May 17, 1983, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order modified, on the law, by granting defendant’s motion to the extent of striking the plaintiff’s demands for damages resulting from foreclosure, and for rent subsequent to the foreclosure sale. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We modify Special Term’s order to the extent of striking plaintiff’s demands for damages resulting from the foreclosure inasmuch as such damages were not a foreseeable result of the breach of the lease (see, Charles E. S. McLeod, Inc. v Hamilton Moving & Stor., 89 AD2d 863; Restatement, Contracts 2d, § 351 [2]), and striking plaintiff’s claim for rent subsequent to the foreclosure sale inasmuch as once the property was sold, plaintiff had no claim to rents due subsequent to the sale (see, RPAPL 1353; Kane Assoc. v Blumenson, 30 AD2d 127, affd 23 NY2d 942). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated May 17, 1983, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order modified, on the law, by granting defendant’s motion to the extent of striking the plaintiff’s demands for damages resulting from foreclosure, and for rent subsequent to the foreclosure sale. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We modify Special Term’s order to the extent of striking plaintiff’s demands for damages resulting from the foreclosure inasmuch as such damages were not a foreseeable result of the breach of the lease (see, Charles E. S. McLeod, Inc. v Hamilton Moving & Stor., 89 AD2d 863; Restatement, Contracts 2d, § 351 [2]), and striking plaintiff’s claim for rent subsequent to the foreclosure sale inasmuch as once the property was sold, plaintiff had no claim to rents due subsequent to the sale (see, RPAPL 1353; Kane Assoc. v Blumenson, 30 AD2d 127, affd 23 NY2d 942). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 814, 486 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enak-realty-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack