Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc. v. Letzt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc. v. Letzt

46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 611 (Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc. v. Letzt) 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

Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc. v. Letzt, 46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 10, 1973, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted and the counterclaim dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc., (landlord) had entered into a lease agreement with the defendant tenant. One clause of that agreement provided, inter alia, that the tenant was prohibited from installing or operating any clothes-washing machines or elothes-drying machines without the prior written consent of the landlord. The tenant nonetheless maintained both a clothes washer and dryer and continued to do so, though told by the landlord’s agent that he was in violation of the terms of the lease agreement. The landlord, in its complaint, asked for injunctive relief. The tenant interposed an answer alleging harassment as well as oral waiver by the landlord, and further alleging as a counterclaim the cost of the machinery [612]*612purchased in reliance on the landlord’s consent. After issue was joined, the landlord moved for summary judgment, which motion was denied by Special Term. Maintenance of a washing machine absent any agreement in the lease to the contrary is not a substantial violation of the tenancy (cf. Akos Realty Corp. v. Mixon, 70 Misc 2d 806). However, in the mase at bar, the lease provides specifically that the landlord is entitled to pursue the remedy of injunctive relief should the tenant breach the agreement. We have heretofore given effect to such clauses (cf. 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, 40 A D 2d 140) and have rejected tenants’ claims of waiver and nonenforcement against other tenants similarly situated (cf. 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, supra; Mutual Redevelopment Mouses v. Balducci, 37 A D 2d 943). Accordingly, the landlord was entitled to summary judgment. Furthermore, the counterclaim of the tenant for damages must be dismissed as barred by the lease agreement. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 10, 1973, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted and the counterclaim dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc., (landlord) had entered into a lease agreement with the defendant tenant. One clause of that agreement provided, inter alia, that the tenant was prohibited from installing or operating any clothes-washing machines or elothes-drying machines without the prior written consent of the landlord. The tenant nonetheless maintained both a clothes washer and dryer and continued to do so, though told by the landlord’s agent that he was in violation of the terms of the lease agreement. The landlord, in its complaint, asked for injunctive relief. The tenant interposed an answer alleging harassment as well as oral waiver by the landlord, and further alleging as a counterclaim the cost of the machinery [612]*612purchased in reliance on the landlord’s consent. After issue was joined, the landlord moved for summary judgment, which motion was denied by Special Term. Maintenance of a washing machine absent any agreement in the lease to the contrary is not a substantial violation of the tenancy (cf. Akos Realty Corp. v. Mixon, 70 Misc 2d 806). However, in the mase at bar, the lease provides specifically that the landlord is entitled to pursue the remedy of injunctive relief should the tenant breach the agreement. We have heretofore given effect to such clauses (cf. 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, 40 A D 2d 140) and have rejected tenants’ claims of waiver and nonenforcement against other tenants similarly situated (cf. 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, supra; Mutual Redevelopment Mouses v. Balducci, 37 A D 2d 943). Accordingly, the landlord was entitled to summary judgment. Furthermore, the counterclaim of the tenant for damages must be dismissed as barred by the lease agreement. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 611, 359 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-hale-gardens-inc-v-letzt-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack