Mapama Corp. v. Nadelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mapama Corp. v. Nadelson

155 A.D.2d 233, 546 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13710

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 233 (Mapama Corp. v. Nadelson) 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

Mapama Corp. v. Nadelson, 155 A.D.2d 233, 546 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered June 10, 1988, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, owner of an interim multiple dwelling, failed to allege compliance with the owner obligations of the Loft Law, as is required in an action to recover rent (Matter of Black-gold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 NY2d 719; Multiple Dwelling Law § 285 [1]). The complaint was therefore subject to attack by CPLR 3211 (a) motion. Even assuming the taking of all reasonable and necessary action by landlord to attain the standards of Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 would be sufficient compliance, plaintiff’s evidentiary showing in opposition to the motion, attempting to cure its pleading omission, fails to make such a demonstration. Thus, it was plain it did not plead a cause of action (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered June 10, 1988, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, owner of an interim multiple dwelling, failed to allege compliance with the owner obligations of the Loft Law, as is required in an action to recover rent (Matter of Black-gold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 NY2d 719; Multiple Dwelling Law § 285 [1]). The complaint was therefore subject to attack by CPLR 3211 (a) motion. Even assuming the taking of all reasonable and necessary action by landlord to attain the standards of Multiple Dwelling Law § 284 would be sufficient compliance, plaintiff’s evidentiary showing in opposition to the motion, attempting to cure its pleading omission, fails to make such a demonstration. Thus, it was plain it did not plead a cause of action (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 636; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 233, 546 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mapama-corp-v-nadelson-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack