Herrick v. Debard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herrick v. Debard

140 A.D.2d 166, 527 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657

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

DecidedMay 5, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 166 (Herrick v. Debard) 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

Herrick v. Debard, 140 A.D.2d 166, 527 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff brought an action, seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant was not using her apartment as a primary residence. Defendant served and filed an answer, including affirmative defenses and counterclaims, one of which sought attorneys’ fees from the plaintiff. Plaintiff moved, inter alia, to strike the counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. This portion of plaintiff’s motion was denied by Supreme Court.

This court, in Kips Bay Towers Assocs. v Yuceoglu (134 AD2d 164 [1st Dept 1987]), in a similar fact situation, involving an action for declaratory judgment by a landlord that the [167]*167premises in question were not the tenant’s primary residence, and construing a lease provision concerning attorneys’ fees identical to the lease provision in the instant case, held that attorneys’ fees were not recoverable by the tenant. The defendant in the instant case has, through counsel, notified the court that she "has decided not to oppose the appeal in this matter.” Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Plaintiff brought an action, seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant was not using her apartment as a primary residence. Defendant served and filed an answer, including affirmative defenses and counterclaims, one of which sought attorneys’ fees from the plaintiff. Plaintiff moved, inter alia, to strike the counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. This portion of plaintiff’s motion was denied by Supreme Court.

This court, in Kips Bay Towers Assocs. v Yuceoglu (134 AD2d 164 [1st Dept 1987]), in a similar fact situation, involving an action for declaratory judgment by a landlord that the [167]*167premises in question were not the tenant’s primary residence, and construing a lease provision concerning attorneys’ fees identical to the lease provision in the instant case, held that attorneys’ fees were not recoverable by the tenant. The defendant in the instant case has, through counsel, notified the court that she "has decided not to oppose the appeal in this matter.” Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 166, 527 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrick-v-debard-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack