Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co.

79 Misc. 2d 168, 363 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1269
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided September 21, 1973·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

In our opinion, the lessor failed to satisfy its implied promise to deliver possession of the premises on the date fixed by the lease for the commencement of the term, or within a reasonable time thereafter (cf. Real Property Law, § 223-a; Rein v. Metrik Co., 200 Misc. 231; Hartwig v. 6465 Realty Co., 67 Misc 2d 450 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]). Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the doctrine of unconscionability (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-302), relied upon by the court below as a basis for plaintiff’s recovery (see Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., 72 Misc 2d 6), should be applied.

Concur — Groat, P. J., Rinaldi and Cone, JJ.

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

Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., 79 Misc. 2d 168, 363 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

79 Misc. 2d 168 (Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Knudsen v. Lax
17 Misc. 3d 350 (Watertown City Court, 2007)
Resource Management Co. v. Weston Ranch
706 P.2d 1028 (Utah Supreme Court, 1985)
Halprin v. 2 Fifth Avenue Co.
101 Misc. 2d 943 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Bel Fior Hotel
95 Misc. 2d 901 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)