Howard Stores Corp. v. Robison Rayon Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard Stores Corp. v. Robison Rayon Co.

36 A.D.2d 911, 320 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4142

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 1971·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Steuer and Eager, JJ.; Nunez, J., dissents in the following memorandum: The determination should be reversed and summary judgment denied to the plaintiff. To the well-reasoned dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Markowitz in the Appellate Term I would merely add that on this record defendant’s attack on plaintiff’s good faith is fully warranted. The conduct of the landlord in refusing possession of the premises to the defendant while demanding full payment of rent was, in my opinion, clearly arbitrary and unconscionable. If plaintiff is correct in asserting that defendant waived its right to re-entry by paragraph 18 of the lease, it should be barred from collecting damages for failure to affirmatively prove its own attempt to mitigate those damages. The facts raise a clear issue of/ good faith, i.e,, plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages, sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and requiring a trial. [64 Misc 2d 913.]

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

Concur — Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Steuer and Eager, JJ.; Nunez, J., dissents in the following memorandum: The determination should be reversed and summary judgment denied to the plaintiff. To the well-reasoned dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Markowitz in the Appellate Term I would merely add that on this record defendant’s attack on plaintiff’s good faith is fully warranted. The conduct of the landlord in refusing possession of the premises to the defendant while demanding full payment of rent was, in my opinion, clearly arbitrary and unconscionable. If plaintiff is correct in asserting that defendant waived its right to re-entry by paragraph 18 of the lease, it should be barred from collecting damages for failure to affirmatively prove its own attempt to mitigate those damages. The facts raise a clear issue of/ good faith, i.e,, plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages, sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and requiring a trial. [64 Misc 2d 913.]

Howard Stores Corp. v. Robison Rayon Co., 36 A.D.2d 911, 320 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

36 A.D.2d 911 (Howard Stores Corp. v. Robison Rayon Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related