Mendez v. 21 West 86th Street LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendez v. 21 West 86th Street LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 2514, 148 A.D.3d 651, 49 N.Y.S.3d 299

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 2017·No. 3573 157759/14·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the portion of defendants 21 West 86th Street LLC and Adellco Management, LLC’s CPLR 3212 motion that sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and that part of the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs alleged in their second cause of action that defendants breached their promise to provide building-wide systems to the rent-stabilized tenants of the building. However, plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence that they had given any consideration in exchange for defendants’ alleged promise, and thus failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether they had a binding contract with defendants (see Presbyterian Church of Albany v Cooper, 112 NY 517, 520 [1889]; Delor Corp. v Quigley, Langer, Hames, Perlmutter, Mankes & Nuskind, Partnership, 287 AD2d 680, 682 [2d Dept 2001]).

*652 The record refutes the third cause of action’s allegations that defendants removed the building’s rooftop garden and denied plaintiffs’ access to it. The record demonstrates that defendants renovated the rooftop garden and the recreational area on the roof for the benefit of the tenants.

We have considered the other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the portion of defendants 21 West 86th Street LLC and Adellco Management, LLC’s CPLR 3212 motion that sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and that part of the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs alleged in their second cause of action that defendants breached their promise to provide building-wide systems to the rent-stabilized tenants of the building. However, plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence that they had given any consideration in exchange for defendants’ alleged promise, and thus failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether they had a binding contract with defendants (see Presbyterian Church of Albany v Cooper, 112 NY 517, 520 [1889]; Delor Corp. v Quigley, Langer, Hames, Perlmutter, Mankes & Nuskind, Partnership, 287 AD2d 680, 682 [2d Dept 2001]).

*652 The record refutes the third cause of action’s allegations that defendants removed the building’s rooftop garden and denied plaintiffs’ access to it. The record demonstrates that defendants renovated the rooftop garden and the recreational area on the roof for the benefit of the tenants.

We have considered the other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Mendez v. 21 West 86th Street LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 2514, 148 A.D.3d 651, 49 N.Y.S.3d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 2514 (Mendez v. 21 West 86th Street LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related