NNA Restaurant Management LLC v. Eshaghian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NNA Restaurant Management LLC v. Eshaghian

29 A.D.3d 384, 815 N.Y.S.2d 499

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 384 (NNA Restaurant Management LLC v. Eshaghian) 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

NNA Restaurant Management LLC v. Eshaghian, 29 A.D.3d 384, 815 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered August 8, 2005, which, in an action by a commercial tenant against its landlord for a Yellowstone injunction, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, dismissed intervenor defendant-appellant’s cross claims against landlord for injunctive relief compelling landlord’s consent to tenant’s assignment of the lease to appellant, and for damages based on landlord’s tortious interference with such assignment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

So much of the appeal as concerns appellant’s cross claim for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by tenant’s surrender of the lease to landlord subsequent to the entry of the order on appeal. We note law of the case that appellant is not a third-party beneficiary of the lease and cannot compel landlord’s consent to the assignment in that capacity. Assuming appellant has a claim for tortious interference with contract or business relations based on landlord’s alleged unreasonable withholding of consent, such claim was properly dismissed upon findings that when the assignment was first proposed after tenant’s institution of the instant action, tenant was in default of its rent obligation, and that landlord’s withholding of consent therefore was not unreasonable (see Sayed v Rapp, 10 AD3d 717, 720 [2004]; cf. F.H.R. Auto Sales v Scutti, 144 AD2d 956, 958 [1988]). Tenant’s proposed payment of a sum of money in exchange for landlord’s release of tenant’s lease obligations and [385]*385consent to the assignment would have transformed the proposed assignment into a novation, for which landlord was not required to act reasonably. In any event, as the judicial hearing officer also found, even if tenant were not in default of its lease obligations, landlord’s withholding of consent was reasonably based on appellant’s and tenant’s failure to provide appropriate information about appellant (see 200 Eighth Ave. Rest. Corp. v Daytona Holding Corp., 293 AD2d 353 [2002]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered August 8, 2005, which, in an action by a commercial tenant against its landlord for a Yellowstone injunction, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, dismissed intervenor defendant-appellant’s cross claims against landlord for injunctive relief compelling landlord’s consent to tenant’s assignment of the lease to appellant, and for damages based on landlord’s tortious interference with such assignment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

So much of the appeal as concerns appellant’s cross claim for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by tenant’s surrender of the lease to landlord subsequent to the entry of the order on appeal. We note law of the case that appellant is not a third-party beneficiary of the lease and cannot compel landlord’s consent to the assignment in that capacity. Assuming appellant has a claim for tortious interference with contract or business relations based on landlord’s alleged unreasonable withholding of consent, such claim was properly dismissed upon findings that when the assignment was first proposed after tenant’s institution of the instant action, tenant was in default of its rent obligation, and that landlord’s withholding of consent therefore was not unreasonable (see Sayed v Rapp, 10 AD3d 717, 720 [2004]; cf. F.H.R. Auto Sales v Scutti, 144 AD2d 956, 958 [1988]). Tenant’s proposed payment of a sum of money in exchange for landlord’s release of tenant’s lease obligations and [385]*385consent to the assignment would have transformed the proposed assignment into a novation, for which landlord was not required to act reasonably. In any event, as the judicial hearing officer also found, even if tenant were not in default of its lease obligations, landlord’s withholding of consent was reasonably based on appellant’s and tenant’s failure to provide appropriate information about appellant (see 200 Eighth Ave. Rest. Corp. v Daytona Holding Corp., 293 AD2d 353 [2002]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 384, 815 N.Y.S.2d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nna-restaurant-management-llc-v-eshaghian-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack