Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 457, 668 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2337

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant is obligated to offer the plaintiff a renewal lease, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared that the plaintiff had breached Ms obligations to the defendant and that the defendant was not obligated to offer the plaintiff a renewal lease.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that the defendant is obligated to offer the plaintiff a renewal lease.

We agree with the plaintiff’s contention that any violations that he committed of the parking rules m his lease or the parking rules of the Bedford Terrace Condominium did not, under the facts of this case, constitute such a breach of his obligations to the defendant as to warrant the forfeiture of the lease (see, General Business Law § 352-eee [2] [c] [ii]; Harar Realty Corp. v Michlin & Hill, 86 AD2d 182, 188; 333-335 E. 209th St. HDFC v McDonnel, 134 Misc 2d 1022). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 457, 668 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

248 A.D.2d 457 (Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harar Realty Corp. v. Michlin & Hill, Inc.
86 A.D.2d 182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
333-335 East 209th Street HDFC v. McDonnell
134 Misc. 2d 1022 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1987)