Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. Balin

New York Court of Appeals

Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. Balin

351 N.E.2d 748, 39 N.Y.2d 848, 386 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2800

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 2, 1976·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Myles J. Lane of that court. We take this occasion to add one observation. In this instance the applicant was categorically advised by the Deputy Borough Superintendent of Buildings that no amendment of the certificate of occupancy was possible. In some situations it might be urged that on receipt of such advice the prospective purchaser should be relieved of all further obligation to pursue attempts to obtain an amendment. Such a contention is less supportable here, however, since arguably the applicant’s engineers should have known that the superintendent’s information was erroneous, and applicant never pressed its request for relief.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, [851] Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Judge Wachtler taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Myles J. Lane of that court. We take this occasion to add one observation. In this instance the applicant was categorically advised by the Deputy Borough Superintendent of Buildings that no amendment of the certificate of occupancy was possible. In some situations it might be urged that on receipt of such advice the prospective purchaser should be relieved of all further obligation to pursue attempts to obtain an amendment. Such a contention is less supportable here, however, since arguably the applicant’s engineers should have known that the superintendent’s information was erroneous, and applicant never pressed its request for relief.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, [851] Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Judge Wachtler taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. Balin, 351 N.E.2d 748, 39 N.Y.2d 848, 386 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2800 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

351 N.E.2d 748 (Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. Balin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related