Mastrangelo v. Five Riverside Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastrangelo v. Five Riverside Corp.

262 A.D.2d 218, 692 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 218 (Mastrangelo v. Five Riverside Corp.) 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

Mastrangelo v. Five Riverside Corp., 262 A.D.2d 218, 692 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 13, 1998, in favor of plaintiff tenant/ shareholder and against defendant cooperative housing corporation in the total amount of $32,224.85, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly calculated the amount of plaintiff’s damages for defendant’s breach of the warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b) as the difference between the maintenance paid by plaintiff and the rental value of the premises during the period of the breach (Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 233 AD2d 104; cf., Young v GSL Enters., 237 AD2d 119). Loss or diminution in value of personal property, such as in the value of a tenant/shareholder’s shares, is not recoverable (see, Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., supra). While plaintiff’s evidence of maintenance paid during the period of the breach was minimal, it was legally sufficient, and was properly credited in the absence of any countervailing evidence from defendant, who was in control of the relevant records. Similarly, plaintiff’s proof of the duration and severity of the breach raised issues of credibility that were properly resolved by the trial court (see, Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329-330, cert denied 444 US 992). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 13, 1998, in favor of plaintiff tenant/ shareholder and against defendant cooperative housing corporation in the total amount of $32,224.85, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly calculated the amount of plaintiff’s damages for defendant’s breach of the warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b) as the difference between the maintenance paid by plaintiff and the rental value of the premises during the period of the breach (Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 233 AD2d 104; cf., Young v GSL Enters., 237 AD2d 119). Loss or diminution in value of personal property, such as in the value of a tenant/shareholder’s shares, is not recoverable (see, Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., supra). While plaintiff’s evidence of maintenance paid during the period of the breach was minimal, it was legally sufficient, and was properly credited in the absence of any countervailing evidence from defendant, who was in control of the relevant records. Similarly, plaintiff’s proof of the duration and severity of the breach raised issues of credibility that were properly resolved by the trial court (see, Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329-330, cert denied 444 US 992). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 218, 692 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastrangelo-v-five-riverside-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack