Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc. v. Pepe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc. v. Pepe

171 A.D.2d 846, 568 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 846 (Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc. v. Pepe) 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

Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc. v. Pepe, 171 A.D.2d 846, 568 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has not acted in violation of the terms of its lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered November 13, 1989, which, inter alia, determined the tax base for the computation of additional rent due under the lease in accordance with the figures proposed by the plaintiff, but which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) and 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff tenant was essentially awarded all of the [847]*847substantive relief that it sought before the Supreme Court insofar as the court determined that the plaintiffs proposed additional rent computations were correct, and the defendant landlord conceded that its calculations were erroneous. However, to the extent that the plaintiff sought a default judgment which is broader in scope and which encompasses issues raised in other proceedings pending between these parties, its motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has not acted in violation of the terms of its lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered November 13, 1989, which, inter alia, determined the tax base for the computation of additional rent due under the lease in accordance with the figures proposed by the plaintiff, but which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) and 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff tenant was essentially awarded all of the [847]*847substantive relief that it sought before the Supreme Court insofar as the court determined that the plaintiffs proposed additional rent computations were correct, and the defendant landlord conceded that its calculations were erroneous. However, to the extent that the plaintiff sought a default judgment which is broader in scope and which encompasses issues raised in other proceedings pending between these parties, its motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 846, 568 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-miller-consulting-actuaries-inc-v-pepe-nyappdiv-1991.