Mingo Pizza Corp. v. Hirstan Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mingo Pizza Corp. v. Hirstan Associates

289 A.D.2d 21, 733 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 21 (Mingo Pizza Corp. v. Hirstan Associates) 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

Mingo Pizza Corp. v. Hirstan Associates, 289 A.D.2d 21, 733 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 19, 2000, which, in an action for wrongful eviction, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Materials submitted in the subtenant’s eviction proceeding [22]*22against the sub-subtenant show that plaintiff, the main tenant, knew that defendant, the landlord, was taking steps to immediately enforce the warrant in the landlord’s eviction proceeding against the subtenant and sub-subtenant, and that plaintiff had ample opportunity to intervene in that proceeding or otherwise challenge execution of the warrant. Plaintiffs failure to do so, or to regain possession of the premises by payment of all rent arrears after the eviction, establish the defenses of laches (see, 75A NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 357) and waiver (see, 57 NY Jur 2d, Estoppel, Ratification, and Waiver, § 74) interposed by defendant in response to this wrongful eviction action commenced after it had already leased the premises to a new tenant. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 19, 2000, which, in an action for wrongful eviction, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Materials submitted in the subtenant’s eviction proceeding [22]*22against the sub-subtenant show that plaintiff, the main tenant, knew that defendant, the landlord, was taking steps to immediately enforce the warrant in the landlord’s eviction proceeding against the subtenant and sub-subtenant, and that plaintiff had ample opportunity to intervene in that proceeding or otherwise challenge execution of the warrant. Plaintiffs failure to do so, or to regain possession of the premises by payment of all rent arrears after the eviction, establish the defenses of laches (see, 75A NY Jur 2d, Limitations and Laches, § 357) and waiver (see, 57 NY Jur 2d, Estoppel, Ratification, and Waiver, § 74) interposed by defendant in response to this wrongful eviction action commenced after it had already leased the premises to a new tenant. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 21, 733 N.Y.S.2d 414, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mingo-pizza-corp-v-hirstan-associates-nyappdiv-2001.