Ram I, L. L. C. v. Stuart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ram I, L. L. C. v. Stuart

248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2668

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 255 (Ram I, L. L. C. v. Stuart) 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

Ram I, L. L. C. v. Stuart, 248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., and Freedman, J.; McCooe, J., dissenting), entered on or about April 22, 1997, which modified an order of Civil Court, New York County (Arthur Birnbaum, J.), entered February 21, 1996, to the extent of granting final judgment in favor of respondent tenants dismissing the holdover petition and vacating that part of the Civil Court order directing restoration of an old stove and that part of the same order awarding attorney’s fees to petitioner landlord, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[256]*256Appellate Term properly concluded that, under the circumstances herein, tenants’ replacement of a 27-year-old stove with a new stove was merely a technical violation of the “no alterations” clause of the parties’ lease as opposed to a significant violation of a substantial obligation thereof (see, Matter of Park W. Vil. v Lewis, 62 NY2d 431, 436-437). Vacatur of the award of counsel fees to the landlord was appropriate where the petition was properly dismissed and the central relief sought by the landlord was denied (Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 415-416). Denial of tenants’ application for counsel fees where tenants’ breach of the lease, albeit minor, was established, was also appropriate.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., and Freedman, J.; McCooe, J., dissenting), entered on or about April 22, 1997, which modified an order of Civil Court, New York County (Arthur Birnbaum, J.), entered February 21, 1996, to the extent of granting final judgment in favor of respondent tenants dismissing the holdover petition and vacating that part of the Civil Court order directing restoration of an old stove and that part of the same order awarding attorney’s fees to petitioner landlord, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[256]*256Appellate Term properly concluded that, under the circumstances herein, tenants’ replacement of a 27-year-old stove with a new stove was merely a technical violation of the “no alterations” clause of the parties’ lease as opposed to a significant violation of a substantial obligation thereof (see, Matter of Park W. Vil. v Lewis, 62 NY2d 431, 436-437). Vacatur of the award of counsel fees to the landlord was appropriate where the petition was properly dismissed and the central relief sought by the landlord was denied (Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 415-416). Denial of tenants’ application for counsel fees where tenants’ breach of the lease, albeit minor, was established, was also appropriate.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 255, 668 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ram-i-l-l-c-v-stuart-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack