National Amusements, Inc. v. South Bronx Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Amusements, Inc. v. South Bronx Development Corp.

253 A.D.2d 358, 676 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 6, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 18, 1997, which, in a declaratory judgment action by plaintiff tenant against defendant landlord involving the method by which plaintiffs share of defendant’s common área charges and taxes are to be calculated under the parties’ lease, insofar as appealed from, dismissed defendant’s second affirmative defense and second counterclaim for reformation as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the underlying claim of mistake is untimely, having accrued when the subject lease [359]*359was executed (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543; Arrathoon v East N. Y. Sav. Bank, 169 AD2d 804, lv denied 77 NY2d 808), and, notwithstanding our comment in Davis v Davis (95 AD2d 674, 675), was not subject to a discovery accrual (see, First Natl. Bank v Volpe, 217 AD2d 967, 968). Defendant’s other arguments with regard to timeliness are without merit. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ other contentions. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 18, 1997, which, in a declaratory judgment action by plaintiff tenant against defendant landlord involving the method by which plaintiffs share of defendant’s common área charges and taxes are to be calculated under the parties’ lease, insofar as appealed from, dismissed defendant’s second affirmative defense and second counterclaim for reformation as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the underlying claim of mistake is untimely, having accrued when the subject lease [359]*359was executed (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543; Arrathoon v East N. Y. Sav. Bank, 169 AD2d 804, lv denied 77 NY2d 808), and, notwithstanding our comment in Davis v Davis (95 AD2d 674, 675), was not subject to a discovery accrual (see, First Natl. Bank v Volpe, 217 AD2d 967, 968). Defendant’s other arguments with regard to timeliness are without merit. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ other contentions. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

National Amusements, Inc. v. South Bronx Development Corp., 253 A.D.2d 358, 676 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 358 (National Amusements, Inc. v. South Bronx Development Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related