National Bank of North America v. Brook Shopping Centers, Inc.

115 A.D.2d 461, 495 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54843
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 2, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 461 (National Bank of North America v. Brook Shopping Centers, Inc.) 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
National Bank of North America v. Brook Shopping Centers, Inc., 115 A.D.2d 461, 495 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), dated September 11, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, (1) declared the lease between plaintiff and defendant to be in full force and effect, (2) declared that certain alterations made by plaintiff were not structural in nature and did not require defendant’s prior written consent, (3) declared that defendant had unreasonably withheld its consent to plaintiff’s alterations, (4) permanently enjoined defendant from evicting plaintiff or otherwise interfering with plaintiff’s use of the demised premises for any reason arising from or relating to any fact, circumstances, or transaction within the context of this action, and (5) dismissed defendant’s counterclaims. Defendant’s notice of appeal dated June 13, 1984 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment dated September 11, 1984 (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting subdivision 3 of the second decretal paragraph thereof which declared that defendant had unreasonably withheld its consent to plaintiff’s alterations. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Nonstructural alterations necessary to carry on a tenant’s business may be made without the landlord’s consent even where a lease provides that no alterations may be made without such consent (N. & S. Decor Fixture Co. v V. J. Enters., 57 AD2d 890). Here the evidence clearly showed that the modifications necessary for plaintiff’s installation of an automatic teller machine were not structural in nature.

Since the trial court properly determined that the defendant’s consent was unnecessary, it should not have determined whether such consent was unreasonably withheld. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Yorktown Funeral Home, LLC v. Kamitis, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 02812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Weisbecker v. West Islip Union Free School District
109 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Marine Buffalo Assocs., L.P. v. HSBC Bank USA
2003 NY Slip Op 51672(U) (New York Supreme Court, Erie County, 2003)
Daniels v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
261 A.D.2d 115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Garrow v. Smith
198 A.D.2d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Marilyn S. v. City of New York
134 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Weinstein v. Board of Education
127 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.2d 461, 495 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-of-north-america-v-brook-shopping-centers-inc-nyappdiv-1985.