Equity Investments v. Paris

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Equity Investments v. Paris

113 Misc. 2d 681, 453 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3467

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 Misc. 2d 681 (Equity Investments v. Paris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Equity Investments v. Paris, 113 Misc. 2d 681, 453 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $30 costs, petition reinstated and final judgment directed to be entered in favor of petitioner. Issuance of the warrant is stayed pending further order of this court on condition that tenant’s parents vacate the premises within 60 days after the date of the order hereon.

This proceeding was brought to recover possession of premises on the ground that tenant permitted her parents to occupy her apartment along with herself, thereby substantially violating the terms of the lease. The lease limited occupancy to tenant’s “immediate family” which was specifically defined as the “parties above mentioned”. Those parties included tenant, tenant’s unmarried children, and children as yet unborn “and not otherwise” (emphasis supplied). In view of this clear and unambiguous clause, it is clear that the occupancy by tenant’s parents [682]*682violated the terms of the lease which must be accorded their plain meaning (see Martin v Glenzan Assoc., 75 AD2d 660). We are also of the opinion that the violation is substantial in nature (cf. Fraydun Enterprises v Ettinger, 91 Misc 2d 119; Mideast Holding Corp. v Tow, 60 Misc 2d 422).

Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Jones, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Final judgment unanimously reversed, with $30 costs, petition reinstated and final judgment directed to be entered in favor of petitioner. Issuance of the warrant is stayed pending further order of this court on condition that tenant’s parents vacate the premises within 60 days after the date of the order hereon.

This proceeding was brought to recover possession of premises on the ground that tenant permitted her parents to occupy her apartment along with herself, thereby substantially violating the terms of the lease. The lease limited occupancy to tenant’s “immediate family” which was specifically defined as the “parties above mentioned”. Those parties included tenant, tenant’s unmarried children, and children as yet unborn “and not otherwise” (emphasis supplied). In view of this clear and unambiguous clause, it is clear that the occupancy by tenant’s parents [682]*682violated the terms of the lease which must be accorded their plain meaning (see Martin v Glenzan Assoc., 75 AD2d 660). We are also of the opinion that the violation is substantial in nature (cf. Fraydun Enterprises v Ettinger, 91 Misc 2d 119; Mideast Holding Corp. v Tow, 60 Misc 2d 422).

Pino, P. J., Buschmann and Jones, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 Misc. 2d 681, 453 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1981 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equity-investments-v-paris-nyappterm-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack