Jaffe v. Coakley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaffe v. Coakley

249 A.D.2d 38, 671 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785

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

DecidedApril 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 38 (Jaffe v. Coakley) 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

Jaffe v. Coakley, 249 A.D.2d 38, 671 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered January 6, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his claim for unjust enrichment against appel[39]*39lants and denied appellants’ cross motion to strike the note of issue, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1997, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $45,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the IAS Court found, plaintiff entered into a lease with appellants to rent a summer house without knowledge that they did not own the house but were merely prime lessees thereof. Nor, in light of the foregoing, was plaintiff aware that appellants’ lease to the subject premises prohibited subletting. The owners of the summer house, upon learning of the unauthorized sublease to plaintiff, terminated appellants’ lease and denied plaintiff possession pursuant to his sublease. Under these circumstances, the IAS Court correctly concluded that defendants-appellants would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to retain plaintiffs summer rental payment, which plaintiff had made in full in advance of his occupancy of the premises (see, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Chemical Bank, 160 AD2d 113, 117, lv denied 77 NY2d 803).

Since appellants appeared at two discovery conferences and failed to inform the court of any outstanding discovery, the court did not err in refusing to vacate the note of issue.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered January 6, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his claim for unjust enrichment against appel[39]*39lants and denied appellants’ cross motion to strike the note of issue, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1997, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $45,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the IAS Court found, plaintiff entered into a lease with appellants to rent a summer house without knowledge that they did not own the house but were merely prime lessees thereof. Nor, in light of the foregoing, was plaintiff aware that appellants’ lease to the subject premises prohibited subletting. The owners of the summer house, upon learning of the unauthorized sublease to plaintiff, terminated appellants’ lease and denied plaintiff possession pursuant to his sublease. Under these circumstances, the IAS Court correctly concluded that defendants-appellants would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to retain plaintiffs summer rental payment, which plaintiff had made in full in advance of his occupancy of the premises (see, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Chemical Bank, 160 AD2d 113, 117, lv denied 77 NY2d 803).

Since appellants appeared at two discovery conferences and failed to inform the court of any outstanding discovery, the court did not err in refusing to vacate the note of issue.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 38, 671 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaffe-v-coakley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack