Glen Oaks Commons, LLC v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glen Oaks Commons, LLC v. Chase Manhattan Bank

304 A.D.2d 315, 756 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428

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

DecidedApril 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 315 (Glen Oaks Commons, LLC v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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

Glen Oaks Commons, LLC v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 304 A.D.2d 315, 756 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 1, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2002 and May 8, 2002, respectively, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages for defendant commercial tenant’s alleged holdover subsequent to the expiration of the subject lease and for defendant’s alleged failure to remove a fixture, i.e., a bank vault, in accordance with lease requirements, the trial court’s determination to dismiss plaintiff landlord’s complaint upon grounds that plaintiff had not established the alleged holdover or that it had made the contractually required 20-day demand for the fixture’s removal, was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, especially since the court’s factual findings rested substantially on its assessments of witness credibility (see Kuo Feng Corp. v Ma, 248 AD2d 168 [1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 845 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 1, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2002 and May 8, 2002, respectively, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages for defendant commercial tenant’s alleged holdover subsequent to the expiration of the subject lease and for defendant’s alleged failure to remove a fixture, i.e., a bank vault, in accordance with lease requirements, the trial court’s determination to dismiss plaintiff landlord’s complaint upon grounds that plaintiff had not established the alleged holdover or that it had made the contractually required 20-day demand for the fixture’s removal, was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, especially since the court’s factual findings rested substantially on its assessments of witness credibility (see Kuo Feng Corp. v Ma, 248 AD2d 168 [1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 845 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 809 [1998]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 315, 756 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glen-oaks-commons-llc-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack