Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 75 Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 75 Owners Corp.

225 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.2d 631, 638 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 338 (Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 75 Owners 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

Metered Appliances, Inc. v. 75 Owners Corp., 225 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.2d 631, 638 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s predecessor entered into a lease in 1989 with the third-party defendant, a corporation previously dissolved by the Secretary of State pursuant to Tax Law § 203-a for failure to pay franchise tax. While a corporate dissolution may not affect the corporation’s right to carry on business for the purpose of winding up its affairs (see, Bowditch v 57 Laight St. Corp., 111 Misc 2d 255), new business is prohibited absent reinstatement by payment of back taxes (see, Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, 119 AD2d 99, 110). As plaintiff did not seek reinstatement, the IAS Court properly held that it had no legal capacity to commence the action and therefore, dismissal of the complaint was warranted (see, B & O Realty Corp. v Chong-Yau Jeng, 201 AD2d 439). However, because the lease had been performed for the first five years of its 10-year term, defendant could not nullify the contract to the detriment of the delinquent plaintiff corporation "after receiving the benefits of performance” (Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, supra, at 112). Thus, the court properly denied defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to declare the lease null and void and for ejectment. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Defendant’s predecessor entered into a lease in 1989 with the third-party defendant, a corporation previously dissolved by the Secretary of State pursuant to Tax Law § 203-a for failure to pay franchise tax. While a corporate dissolution may not affect the corporation’s right to carry on business for the purpose of winding up its affairs (see, Bowditch v 57 Laight St. Corp., 111 Misc 2d 255), new business is prohibited absent reinstatement by payment of back taxes (see, Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, 119 AD2d 99, 110). As plaintiff did not seek reinstatement, the IAS Court properly held that it had no legal capacity to commence the action and therefore, dismissal of the complaint was warranted (see, B & O Realty Corp. v Chong-Yau Jeng, 201 AD2d 439). However, because the lease had been performed for the first five years of its 10-year term, defendant could not nullify the contract to the detriment of the delinquent plaintiff corporation "after receiving the benefits of performance” (Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo, supra, at 112). Thus, the court properly denied defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to declare the lease null and void and for ejectment. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 338, 638 N.Y.2d 631, 638 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metered-appliances-inc-v-75-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack