Mengoni v. Passy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mengoni v. Passy

254 A.D.2d 203, 679 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11408

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 203 (Mengoni v. Passy) 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

Mengoni v. Passy, 254 A.D.2d 203, 679 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., and Freedman, J.; Pamess, J., dissenting), entered November 21, 1997, which, in a holdover proceeding, insofar as appealed from, affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 14, 1996, dismissing the proceeding after trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We decline to disturb the factual determination reached by the Civil Court and a majority of the Appellate Term that the appliances and items removed and replaced or fixed by respondent — including kitchen cabinets, air conditioners, refrigerators and bathroom sink — were in a defective state, and that the landlord did not respond to tenant’s repeated complaints and demands to have the items fixed (see, Thoreson v Penthouse [204]*204Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). Accordingly, the unilateral action undertaken by respondent was warranted, and was not a substantial breach of the “no alterations” clause of the lease (compare, Britton v Yazicioglu, 189 AD2d 734). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ. [See, 175 Misc 2d 498.]

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

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., and Freedman, J.; Pamess, J., dissenting), entered November 21, 1997, which, in a holdover proceeding, insofar as appealed from, affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 14, 1996, dismissing the proceeding after trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We decline to disturb the factual determination reached by the Civil Court and a majority of the Appellate Term that the appliances and items removed and replaced or fixed by respondent — including kitchen cabinets, air conditioners, refrigerators and bathroom sink — were in a defective state, and that the landlord did not respond to tenant’s repeated complaints and demands to have the items fixed (see, Thoreson v Penthouse [204]*204Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). Accordingly, the unilateral action undertaken by respondent was warranted, and was not a substantial breach of the “no alterations” clause of the lease (compare, Britton v Yazicioglu, 189 AD2d 734). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ. [See, 175 Misc 2d 498.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 203, 679 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mengoni-v-passy-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack