Searle Blatt & Co. v. Zurich Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Searle Blatt & Co. v. Zurich Holding Co.

282 A.D.2d 388, 723 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff declaring that it has no obligation to obtain any further insurance and defendants may not interfere with plaintiff’s right to use and occupancy of the leased premises.

[389] The IAS court improperly denied plaintiffs motion since defendant Zurich Holding Co., L. L. C. never tendered any evidence establishing that it was the successor-in-interest to Zurich Holding Co., the landlord on the lease. Thus, the default notices are deemed defective (see, Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 108 AD2d 218, affd 67 NY2d 792).

Moreover, defendants waived any objections they might have had to the adequacy of the insurance coverage by waiting four or five years after receipt of the insurance certificates and completion of the renovations to voice their objections (see, Restoration Realty Corp. v Robero, 87 AD2d 301, affd 58 NY2d 1089). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 18, 2000, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion granted, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff declaring that it has no obligation to obtain any further insurance and defendants may not interfere with plaintiff’s right to use and occupancy of the leased premises.

[389] The IAS court improperly denied plaintiffs motion since defendant Zurich Holding Co., L. L. C. never tendered any evidence establishing that it was the successor-in-interest to Zurich Holding Co., the landlord on the lease. Thus, the default notices are deemed defective (see, Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 108 AD2d 218, affd 67 NY2d 792).

Moreover, defendants waived any objections they might have had to the adequacy of the insurance coverage by waiting four or five years after receipt of the insurance certificates and completion of the renovations to voice their objections (see, Restoration Realty Corp. v Robero, 87 AD2d 301, affd 58 NY2d 1089). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Searle Blatt & Co. v. Zurich Holding Co., 282 A.D.2d 388, 723 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

282 A.D.2d 388 (Searle Blatt & Co. v. Zurich Holding Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related