Jacreg Realty Corp. v. Barnes

284 A.D.2d 280, 727 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 280 (Jacreg Realty Corp. v. Barnes) 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
Jacreg Realty Corp. v. Barnes, 284 A.D.2d 280, 727 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered August 28, 2000, affirming so much of an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Deighton Waite, J.), entered on or about October 12, 1999, as denied petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees in a summary holdover proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding petitioner’s status as a prevailing party in this summary holdover proceeding in which petitioner was awarded use and occupancy covering the period between the expiration of the parties’ prior lease and respondents’ voluntary surrender of the subject apartment, an award of attorneys’ fees may be denied “where bad faith is established on the part of the successful party or where unfairness is manifest” (Nesbitt v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 121 Misc 2d 336, 340). Although there was no requirement that petitioner offer a lease renewal to respondents, once it did, respondents’ [281]*281execution and delivery of the renewal lease resulted in a binding bilateral contract (see, Matter of East 56th Plaza v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 NY2d 544) and petitioner’s subsequent “withdrawal” of the renewal lease, in retaliation for respondents’ inquiry to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal as to the legal rent status of the subject premises, constituted a substantial breach of the léase. Plainly, an award of attorneys’ fees to petitioner, for prevailing in a summary holdover proceeding predicated upon petitioner’s wrongful lease termination, would not have been justified.

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Levin v. Brust
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
Anello v. Fiedler
73 Misc. 3d 46 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Isaly-Liceaga v. Pickarski
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
SJS Thompson LLC v. Singer
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
Kirock 80 Co., LLC v. Mootoo
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Matter of 251 CPW Hous. LLC v. Pastreich
124 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp.
93 A.D.3d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mam Properties, LLC v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc.
36 Misc. 3d 75 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Schiff v. Sokolow
48 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
1997 Marcy Avenue, Inc. v. Clinkscale
16 Misc. 3d 78 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Huron Associates, LLC v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.
18 A.D.3d 231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe
1 A.D.3d 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 280, 727 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacreg-realty-corp-v-barnes-nyappdiv-2001.