Russell v. Henshel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Henshel

156 A.D.2d 181, 548 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15312

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 181 (Russell v. Henshel) 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

Russell v. Henshel, 156 A.D.2d 181, 548 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered September 29, 1988, insofar as it denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of fact concerning the status of the apartment make this case inappropriate for disposition by means of summary judgment. There are sufficient collateral writings (see, Crabtree v Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48; Marks v Cowdin, 226 NY 138) so as to provide a basis for admitting parol evidence regarding the nature of this transaction and, [182]*182thereby, satisfy the Statute of Frauds as a matter of law (see, Iandoli v Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 57 AD2d 815, Iv dismissed 42 NY2d 1011). The prime tenant’s admitted lack of any connection with the control or occupancy of the apartment raises the question of an illusory tenant and whether equity should impose a constructive trust on the premises in plaintiff’s favor (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233). Concur—Asch, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered September 29, 1988, insofar as it denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of fact concerning the status of the apartment make this case inappropriate for disposition by means of summary judgment. There are sufficient collateral writings (see, Crabtree v Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48; Marks v Cowdin, 226 NY 138) so as to provide a basis for admitting parol evidence regarding the nature of this transaction and, [182]*182thereby, satisfy the Statute of Frauds as a matter of law (see, Iandoli v Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 57 AD2d 815, Iv dismissed 42 NY2d 1011). The prime tenant’s admitted lack of any connection with the control or occupancy of the apartment raises the question of an illusory tenant and whether equity should impose a constructive trust on the premises in plaintiff’s favor (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233). Concur—Asch, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 181, 548 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-henshel-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack