Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty Associates v. KMO-361 Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty Associates v. KMO-361 Realty Associates

211 A.D.2d 695, 621 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 695 (Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty Associates v. KMO-361 Realty Associates) 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

Fifth Avenue of Long Island Realty Associates v. KMO-361 Realty Associates, 211 A.D.2d 695, 621 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover rent due under a commercial lease, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered June 17, 1993, which, upon an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $455,102.93.

[696]*696Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant tenant’s claim of frustration of purpose based on the bankruptcy of the sublessee. The terms of the lease indicate that it was foreseeable that the tenant might find itself in bankruptcy proceedings, or that the defendant might cease the type of retail operation contemplated by the parties, but that no protection for the defendant in the event of such occurrences was provided. Because the event which the defendant now claims frustrated its purpose in entering the lease was foreseeable, the defense of frustration of purpose is not available (see, 407 E. 61st Garage v Savoy Fifth Ave. Corp., 23 NY2d 275, 282; Beagle v Parillo, 116 AD2d 856, 857; Frenchman & Sweet v Philco Discount Corp., 21 AD2d 180, 182; see also, 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 362), and the defendant is liable for rent under the lease. Miller, J. P., Joy, Rrausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover rent due under a commercial lease, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered June 17, 1993, which, upon an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $455,102.93.

[696]*696Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant tenant’s claim of frustration of purpose based on the bankruptcy of the sublessee. The terms of the lease indicate that it was foreseeable that the tenant might find itself in bankruptcy proceedings, or that the defendant might cease the type of retail operation contemplated by the parties, but that no protection for the defendant in the event of such occurrences was provided. Because the event which the defendant now claims frustrated its purpose in entering the lease was foreseeable, the defense of frustration of purpose is not available (see, 407 E. 61st Garage v Savoy Fifth Ave. Corp., 23 NY2d 275, 282; Beagle v Parillo, 116 AD2d 856, 857; Frenchman & Sweet v Philco Discount Corp., 21 AD2d 180, 182; see also, 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 362), and the defendant is liable for rent under the lease. Miller, J. P., Joy, Rrausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 695, 621 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fifth-avenue-of-long-island-realty-associates-v-kmo-361-realty-associates-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack