R & A Food Services, Inc. v. Halmar Equities, Inc.

278 A.D.2d 398, 717 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13223
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 398 (R & A Food Services, Inc. v. Halmar Equities, 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
R & A Food Services, Inc. v. Halmar Equities, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 398, 717 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to rescind a lease, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated January 12, 2000, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first and second counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the cross motion which were to dismiss the complaint and for summary [399]*399judgment on the issue of liability on the first counterclaim, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter into a lease by certain representations made by the defendant. However, after learning of the alleged fraud, the plaintiff waited more than one year before commencing this action, and failed to take any other action to rescind the lease. Because the plaintiff failed to promptly seek rescission after learning of the alleged fraud, it has waived its claim (see, New York Tel. Co. v Jamestown Tel. Corp., 282 NY 365, 372; see also, Big Top Stores v Ardsley Toy Shoppe, 64 Misc 2d 894, 901, affd 36 AD2d 582).

The plaintiff concedes that it stopped paying rent before the expiration of the lease. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first counterclaim which seeks unpaid rent. As to its second counterclaim, the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it is entitled to the commissions it seeks. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smalls v. Eichner
69 Misc. 3d 134(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Glatt v. Mariner Partners, Inc.
63 A.D.3d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Adrian Family Partners I, L.P. v. ExxonMobil Corp.
61 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Longo v. Bushman
47 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Albany Medical College v. Lobel
296 A.D.2d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 398, 717 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-a-food-services-inc-v-halmar-equities-inc-nyappdiv-2000.