NCK Organization, Ltd. v. Burr Lucey & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NCK Organization, Ltd. v. Burr Lucey & Co.

39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252

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

DecidedJune 20, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 873 (NCK Organization, Ltd. v. Burr Lucey & 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

NCK Organization, Ltd. v. Burr Lucey & Co., 39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 13, 1971, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The action is for rent on a sublease admittedly entered into by the parties. The defenses are based on three contentions: that the building, as distinct from the premises rented, was not ready for occupancy on the date provided in the lease; that the demised premises were not so ready; and that there was an oral agreement permitting the defendant to cancel in the event one of its officers terminated his connection [874]*874with defendant. The first contention is untenable due to provisions in the lease making this ground the sole responsibility of the main landlord and providing for defendant’s relief. Plainly the only respect in which the second contention could be supported is on the basis of defendant’s failure to submit floor plans. As to the third, the alleged agreement was not with plaintiff but with a real estate broker not shown to be an agent of the plaintiff, and would in any event be barred by the parol evidence rule. The situation is shown to be but another of the increasing series of actions resulting from leases improvidently made in the light of the collapsing real estate market. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 13, 1971, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The action is for rent on a sublease admittedly entered into by the parties. The defenses are based on three contentions: that the building, as distinct from the premises rented, was not ready for occupancy on the date provided in the lease; that the demised premises were not so ready; and that there was an oral agreement permitting the defendant to cancel in the event one of its officers terminated his connection [874]*874with defendant. The first contention is untenable due to provisions in the lease making this ground the sole responsibility of the main landlord and providing for defendant’s relief. Plainly the only respect in which the second contention could be supported is on the basis of defendant’s failure to submit floor plans. As to the third, the alleged agreement was not with plaintiff but with a real estate broker not shown to be an agent of the plaintiff, and would in any event be barred by the parol evidence rule. The situation is shown to be but another of the increasing series of actions resulting from leases improvidently made in the light of the collapsing real estate market. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nck-organization-ltd-v-burr-lucey-co-nyappdiv-1972.