Jackson 37 Co. v. Laumat, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson 37 Co. v. Laumat, LLC

31 A.D.3d 609, 820 N.Y.S.2d 281

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 609 (Jackson 37 Co. v. Laumat, LLC) 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

Jackson 37 Co. v. Laumat, LLC, 31 A.D.3d 609, 820 N.Y.S.2d 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for reformation of a lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated March 9, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment on its fifth cause of action for ejectment.

[610]*610Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The parties executed a lease providing that the defendants’ failure to procure a liability insurance policy naming the plaintiff as an additional insured would constitute a material default of the terms of the subject lease, and the defendants failed to procure the required policy. Thus, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the defendants’ default (see Schultz v Ljungqvist, 1 AD3d 498 [2003]; C & N Camera & Elecs. v Farmore Realty, 178 AD2d 310 [1991]; Brainerd Mfg. Co. v Dewey Garden Lanes, 78 AD2d 365 [1981]; see also Fishkill Health Related Ctr. v Van DeWater & Van DeWater, 235 AD2d 389, 390-391 [1997]).

In opposition, the defendants merely asserted that the plaintiff should have exercised its alternative remedies under the lease. However, pursuant to the lease, the exercise of these remedies was at the plaintiffs option. Accordingly, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for reformation of a lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated March 9, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment on its fifth cause of action for ejectment.

[610]*610Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The parties executed a lease providing that the defendants’ failure to procure a liability insurance policy naming the plaintiff as an additional insured would constitute a material default of the terms of the subject lease, and the defendants failed to procure the required policy. Thus, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the defendants’ default (see Schultz v Ljungqvist, 1 AD3d 498 [2003]; C & N Camera & Elecs. v Farmore Realty, 178 AD2d 310 [1991]; Brainerd Mfg. Co. v Dewey Garden Lanes, 78 AD2d 365 [1981]; see also Fishkill Health Related Ctr. v Van DeWater & Van DeWater, 235 AD2d 389, 390-391 [1997]).

In opposition, the defendants merely asserted that the plaintiff should have exercised its alternative remedies under the lease. However, pursuant to the lease, the exercise of these remedies was at the plaintiffs option. Accordingly, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 609, 820 N.Y.S.2d 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-37-co-v-laumat-llc-nyappdiv-2006.