Miro-Quesada v. Two Trees Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miro-Quesada v. Two Trees Management Co.

246 A.D.2d 443, 668 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 415

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 443 (Miro-Quesada v. Two Trees Management Co.) 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

Miro-Quesada v. Two Trees Management Co., 246 A.D.2d 443, 668 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered April 23, 1997, which, in an action for, inter alia, conversion, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant residential cooperative corporation’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant was not formally appointed a stakeholder of the property in plaintiff’s fiancée’s apartment, the evidence of competing claims to the fiancée’s estate, and of resulting concerns that plaintiff intended to remove property from the apartment that may not have belonged to her, raises triable issues of fact as to whether defendant’s refusal to permit plaintiff to remove property from the apartment was reasonable, and therefore justified (see, Bradley v Roe, 282 NY 525, 532-533). There are also triable issues as to whether defendant was negligent in securing the property from theft, raised by the evidence that its managing agent had notice that someone had entered the apartment, apparently to remove clothing and other items contained therein, and that the apartment shares a terrace with other apartments, including one owned by the decedent’s widow. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered April 23, 1997, which, in an action for, inter alia, conversion, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant residential cooperative corporation’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant was not formally appointed a stakeholder of the property in plaintiff’s fiancée’s apartment, the evidence of competing claims to the fiancée’s estate, and of resulting concerns that plaintiff intended to remove property from the apartment that may not have belonged to her, raises triable issues of fact as to whether defendant’s refusal to permit plaintiff to remove property from the apartment was reasonable, and therefore justified (see, Bradley v Roe, 282 NY 525, 532-533). There are also triable issues as to whether defendant was negligent in securing the property from theft, raised by the evidence that its managing agent had notice that someone had entered the apartment, apparently to remove clothing and other items contained therein, and that the apartment shares a terrace with other apartments, including one owned by the decedent’s widow. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 443, 668 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miro-quesada-v-two-trees-management-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack