Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates

269 A.D.2d 297, 704 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 297 (Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates) 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

Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates, 269 A.D.2d 297, 704 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered January 15, 1999, which, in an action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud in connection with the cooperative conversion of an apartment building, denied, in part, defendant sponsor’s motion for leave to file an [298]*298amended answer, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant that portion of defendants’ motion seeking to amend their answer to interpose a counterclaim for offset for the return of subsidies paid to plaintiff cooperative corporation, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in denying so much of defendants’ motion to amend as sought to add to their answer a counterclaim seeking a refund of subsidies paid to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of an offering plan because the proposed amendment was not plainly without merit (see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170). The motion court, however, properly denied the motion to amend insofar as it sought to add to defendants’ answer an affirmative defense/ counterclaim for breach of an oral settlement agreement since the purported settlement agreement, not having been evidenced by a properly subscribed writing, much less one reduced to the form of an order, was unenforceable (see, CPLR 2104; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 3-4). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered January 15, 1999, which, in an action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud in connection with the cooperative conversion of an apartment building, denied, in part, defendant sponsor’s motion for leave to file an [298]*298amended answer, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant that portion of defendants’ motion seeking to amend their answer to interpose a counterclaim for offset for the return of subsidies paid to plaintiff cooperative corporation, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in denying so much of defendants’ motion to amend as sought to add to their answer a counterclaim seeking a refund of subsidies paid to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of an offering plan because the proposed amendment was not plainly without merit (see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170). The motion court, however, properly denied the motion to amend insofar as it sought to add to defendants’ answer an affirmative defense/ counterclaim for breach of an oral settlement agreement since the purported settlement agreement, not having been evidenced by a properly subscribed writing, much less one reduced to the form of an order, was unenforceable (see, CPLR 2104; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 3-4). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 297, 704 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lex-tenants-corp-v-gramercy-north-associates-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack