Lleshanaku v. Kenmore Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lleshanaku v. Kenmore Associates, L.P.

309 A.D.2d 545, 765 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 5, 2003 and June 9, 2003, which, sua sponte, struck the action from the trial calendar and transferred it to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in removing plaintiffs’ action, seeking damages for, inter alia, violations of the Roommate Law (Real Property Law § 235-f), to Civil Court since plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief had been rendered moot, and since Civil Court would have had jurisdiction of the matter but for the amount of damages demanded by plaintiffs, which amount, it was apparent after a hearing, plaintiffs were largely unprepared to substantiate (see CPLR 325 [d]; see e.g. Chico v Nadler, 300 AD2d 105 [2002]; cf. Gair Co. v Cambridge Carpet, 160 AD2d 371 [1990]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered June 5, 2003 and June 9, 2003, which, sua sponte, struck the action from the trial calendar and transferred it to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in removing plaintiffs’ action, seeking damages for, inter alia, violations of the Roommate Law (Real Property Law § 235-f), to Civil Court since plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief had been rendered moot, and since Civil Court would have had jurisdiction of the matter but for the amount of damages demanded by plaintiffs, which amount, it was apparent after a hearing, plaintiffs were largely unprepared to substantiate (see CPLR 325 [d]; see e.g. Chico v Nadler, 300 AD2d 105 [2002]; cf. Gair Co. v Cambridge Carpet, 160 AD2d 371 [1990]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Lleshanaku v. Kenmore Associates, L.P., 309 A.D.2d 545, 765 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

309 A.D.2d 545 (Lleshanaku v. Kenmore Associates, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related