New York State Urban Development Corp. v. MJM Exhibitors, Inc.

193 A.D.2d 523, 598 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5116
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 523 (New York State Urban Development Corp. v. MJM Exhibitors, 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
New York State Urban Development Corp. v. MJM Exhibitors, Inc., 193 A.D.2d 523, 598 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered October 22, 1992, which denied appellant-condemnee’s motion to rescind a stipulation of settlement on the ground of fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that a showing of necessity is not required by a condemnor seeking a writ of assistance pursuant to EDPL 405 (A), the only prerequisite to such relief being the condemnor’s payment to the condemnee of the advance payment, and that the condemnor’s alleged misrepresentations concerning its immediate need for possession of the premises in order to meet construction deadlines, and the condemnee’s alleged reliance thereon in entering into the challenged stipulation requiring its immediate removal from the premises, are therefore irrelevant. In any event, appellantcondemnee’s claims of reliance are belied by the absence of any indication by its co-owner that his consent to the stipulation was contingent upon respondent’s need for the premises. Nor is there any indication that respondent’s representations made prior to the execution of the stipulation were then untrue. Although respondent notified the court of the delay only two weeks after the stipulation was executed, it also stated that the modification was the result of "recent developments”, and that the change would not "affect [its] ongoing efforts to vacate occupants from the condemned premises.” Accordingly, appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing was properly denied. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

In re City of New York
41 Misc. 3d 818 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
In re Village of Port Chester
303 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the New York State Urban Development Corp.
166 Misc. 2d 909 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 A.D.2d 523, 598 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-state-urban-development-corp-v-mjm-exhibitors-inc-nyappdiv-1993.