Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, Inc.

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

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 457 (Rudd v. Bedford Terrace, 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 457, 668 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudd-v-bedford-terrace-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack