Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe

1 A.D.3d 135, 766 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 135 (Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe) 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

Solow Management Corp. v. Lowe, 1 A.D.3d 135, 766 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 18, 2002, which denied plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the full history of this dispute between plaintiff landlord and various tenants of the residential building in question (see e.g. Solow v Bradley, 273 AD2d 75 [2000]; Solow v Wellner, 205 AD2d 339 [1994], affd 86 NY2d 582 [1995]; Solov[136]*136ieff Gallery Co. v Langston, 167 AD2d 325 [1990]), and defendant’s decision to pay all claimed rent arrears and forgo his viable claim for a rent abatement, the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. Even assuming that plaintiff should be viewed as having substantially prevailed, the imposition of attorneys’ fees would be unfair under the particular circumstances of this case (see Jacreg Realty Corp. v Barnes, 284 AD2d 280 [2001]; Nesbitt v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 121 Misc 2d 336, 340 [1983]; see also Solow v Wellner, 205 AD2d at 340). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 18, 2002, which denied plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the full history of this dispute between plaintiff landlord and various tenants of the residential building in question (see e.g. Solow v Bradley, 273 AD2d 75 [2000]; Solow v Wellner, 205 AD2d 339 [1994], affd 86 NY2d 582 [1995]; Solov[136]*136ieff Gallery Co. v Langston, 167 AD2d 325 [1990]), and defendant’s decision to pay all claimed rent arrears and forgo his viable claim for a rent abatement, the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. Even assuming that plaintiff should be viewed as having substantially prevailed, the imposition of attorneys’ fees would be unfair under the particular circumstances of this case (see Jacreg Realty Corp. v Barnes, 284 AD2d 280 [2001]; Nesbitt v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 121 Misc 2d 336, 340 [1983]; see also Solow v Wellner, 205 AD2d at 340). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 135, 766 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solow-management-corp-v-lowe-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack