Marina Bay Club, Inc. v. Cannizzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marina Bay Club, Inc. v. Cannizzaro

105 A.D.2d 1114, 482 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21210

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1114 (Marina Bay Club, Inc. v. Cannizzaro) 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

Marina Bay Club, Inc. v. Cannizzaro, 105 A.D.2d 1114, 482 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: On respondent’s counterclaim for wrongful eviction, the court awarded damages in the sum of $45,640. Included in this sum was the amount of $35,000 for the value of the respondent’s leasehold interest and his business. The court based this $35,000 figure upon an “arm’s length” contract respondent entered into for the sale of his business, including the leasehold, which respondent alleged was aborted by the wrongful eviction. Although this may be a proper measure of damages for the wrongful eviction, respondent admits in his answer that the contract was aborted not by the eviction but by petitioner’s refusal to consent to an assignment of the lease. The alleged unreasonable refusal is the subject of a separate counterclaim which has been severed for a separate trial.

The measure of damages for a wrongful eviction is the difference between the actual rental value and the agreed-upon but unpaid rent (Randall-Smith v 43rd St. Estates Corp., 17 NY2d 99, 102). Here, there was no proof of the rental value of the property since the contract for the sale of the business included not only the value of the leasehold, but also the good will of the business.

Also included in the award of damages for the wrongful eviction was the sum of $8,000 for improvements made to the leasehold prior to the eviction. Since the improvements may have added value to the leasehold, damages, if any, for the improvements should be considered in connection with the award based on the value of the leasehold.

The award of $45,640 is vacated; a judgment of $2,640 is awarded representing the security deposit held by the landlord; and the matter is remitted to the trial court for additional testimony and a new determination on the issue of damages for the wrongful eviction. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J. — summary proceeding.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: On respondent’s counterclaim for wrongful eviction, the court awarded damages in the sum of $45,640. Included in this sum was the amount of $35,000 for the value of the respondent’s leasehold interest and his business. The court based this $35,000 figure upon an “arm’s length” contract respondent entered into for the sale of his business, including the leasehold, which respondent alleged was aborted by the wrongful eviction. Although this may be a proper measure of damages for the wrongful eviction, respondent admits in his answer that the contract was aborted not by the eviction but by petitioner’s refusal to consent to an assignment of the lease. The alleged unreasonable refusal is the subject of a separate counterclaim which has been severed for a separate trial.

The measure of damages for a wrongful eviction is the difference between the actual rental value and the agreed-upon but unpaid rent (Randall-Smith v 43rd St. Estates Corp., 17 NY2d 99, 102). Here, there was no proof of the rental value of the property since the contract for the sale of the business included not only the value of the leasehold, but also the good will of the business.

Also included in the award of damages for the wrongful eviction was the sum of $8,000 for improvements made to the leasehold prior to the eviction. Since the improvements may have added value to the leasehold, damages, if any, for the improvements should be considered in connection with the award based on the value of the leasehold.

The award of $45,640 is vacated; a judgment of $2,640 is awarded representing the security deposit held by the landlord; and the matter is remitted to the trial court for additional testimony and a new determination on the issue of damages for the wrongful eviction. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J. — summary proceeding.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1114, 482 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marina-bay-club-inc-v-cannizzaro-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack