St. Nicholas Sports Center, Inc. v. Lincoln Square Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Nicholas Sports Center, Inc. v. Lincoln Square Center, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 521

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 521 (St. Nicholas Sports Center, Inc. v. Lincoln Square Center, 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

St. Nicholas Sports Center, Inc. v. Lincoln Square Center, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The landlord in this proceeding is the lessee of an entire building under a ten-year lease terminating September 14, 1953. It sublet a portion of the premises to the tenant herein for a term which ended on January 14, 1949, and it now seeks to recover possession of the tenant’s space for its own [522]*522use; _ The proceeding is brought under paragraph 1 of subdivision (hi) of section 8 of the Business Rent Law (L. 1945, tóÍáH§ % s^Mil^k-as added j>y,L,,1^46, .,fih,;27§?i|is2i) ,, M ,T:; Trior to^M^eiil, &)r ¡adding the pro visions of sub^^sipn ((h);, pf, section^ ,to:,;the Business Rent . ..íhbmuw 86M883W mi ü ammis-j@ «iíoixr the business to he carried on m the

„ By the enactment of subdivision (h) the light to maintain .such ,8 mfi-aas.-jobifr’.ii' íi'ntOiíi.i;.'-,r. vu i;-)¡j[¡¡i'-uu amre&feV’l Viuimyjn iu , tests® MBaBiessimder paragr&pihd of subdivision (h)j. Siicgitheipioyisipns ¡of,.subdivision- (id) circumscribing the,.right feipossession Iveremot-repeated in--subdivision (h)y!lhe:;ques-tion ááipreserited! as # yrhetbefrhd1)1 añd'fh,)Ih#é(-tiO;bhíi’,éád togbth'bLs© ;ilahdlb'í,d:5hedkitl#r)oyshssii'(1)iüiTólr''.,i<t^ ‘Own M^éfwbraih^hW’bhbíhb^'wi'ch'li ^idpb'yy p’ft nathorigedito,. muintpiu i proceedings. for étoeiaSec^yeryí ©fr.businésS! spade ítheiiLegislMureüdid-xno't ihteÉíd tfteSsesbeíiefitedHby the* amendment to have-giehterTights thahthi ÉvtolFb ftíW&jjftop&rjkfl! .Wé'fiávfe ¿tíreátljf§iciheld íít‘1 b'í’ti&déflíW 9..M .Qi.-tófiíül íht'Jyií-- y> JL _ ,b\ (/w of section •Oririqlt'j yiu 2 35t«V«l,V *ii U J5), O plrnymmbm F _ ____n 8. ' (224 West 27th Street Corporation v. Lieberman, 272 App. Div. 725)Í BÍÉt'thust be’bqtiié'íii: ihihd'that'the' 'p’rffpose -tení'dfgeiidyfllbg&lhtidn>‘ivatsi. tbní- 6tihbtlti$é,,6'xris1íifii9,,,áiml # k ti ___,^j-j. ... ri<l .blpe<^á"m'vííseó:f9W0rbitéht!'rétíts'tan'd(*wides,preádlevi'G’táonsi^ miler fbeimlíbrtagé 'of-ibusihbkk; Space!• .'continried (Matter of fifth Madison Corp. [New York Tel. Co.[ 297 N. Y. 155, 160)r ffitfbei. dawnmffiorSs upibtéctóbSilotóin tenaütsíl'diñf posse's; Mo#ánd!stiiñp'óratiíyi «suspends thb ivightá'ióf ? thdséí PÜtitl'ed to possession. Anyí®Ml&td%hdimstitufé4k!-pii''ó'éfeé’,dib.gi,tt)iré,é5Vdi hiisincissspaceTor-lts ovvii us.e, seeks to oust-a tonántiif possession -ahíti itábe refere must meet- the -requirements imposed; V There- is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between a landlord-whose EÉptóWFÍ1* is predicated upon a leasehold. Both see^^^m^r^ thfeteñf bhk bndbld; ¿id h^btfaf f ^tó* tHeibiihbdfee J@f lSí$ aífdWéSBtéhtídii óf fhh(fe‘é^\sfafnfo'y ^ -^5 d'j!

'ihtéreí#lh‘th¿ ífli^átiheíit á#"h'indeñti¿ry fdquíf ehléht^aiidí rihéd5"n'otrheu ¿pb1 «j.Vr IS' [523]*523eifically alleged in,!ithe petijtipn,, Jn respect,an allegation that the space:,is, sought, fop tk.e .landlord 5s ¿Sown.immediate and-pern fíonal use. ’ ’ is sufficient. • Such an allegation is contained in the1 petition in this caSe. The proof in support thereof establishes ffiatitife/Ríidlferd,’’s is’^rekltér/tháh'the^hiinith IjV tlie Statute^ jit ájJ>peatjad-t/5.except,xor d^SvPordioniipccu'pied byiitheitpnantjiithe .entire::buil4ingris':Usod.!hy.:ithe;r.landlord,in its¡ business -1 which'1 consists1 ofRrentiiig -its - pRemisek-íoñ sporting events, dances, cPnvehtiqilk, banquets -knxl the like.' It is its sole pl^cé'pf business! ' The landlord contends that it could improve ltd,pdsipees^,íf, Ifdiad.qío.eseetiiop.pf' t,hp dpiLapt ’e, Ip.^ce. By till?; proceeding, it seeks-to .recover, possession. - of .-such ¡space - for. the. purpose of using it to expand its business. It is, therefore,- the ffijté oWei-'ot tIfd 'bííyiiicfé'g'|)íbpBsed'tC)i bC'cai'riéd’bítí ill the-space "PÍ?'1\®M^.íí-,^]lií'i.í’"--tí^''ipO^’jilVpitósf’in tlie inyestmeiítf yiip hltpatíqhb.étiveen tíie, laiidlordVpcl .íiis,crémtoi;k need not he Considered.1 „■< ... ?• r. ¡mu - -«u, :i1 v > ¡i-.:.... --v i,»,.

;-i,-Thfe fqiiestion o-l'the landlc)rd'’-s - good1 faith is a - quéstioii" of'fact which W'as submitted to the jtivy oil a proper charge and itsverdi^tin11 j^vor ]"pf tíin 'JLk^cllprdV i's ‘the evidence. -A'lii»,",, : .ill -fj; ", : i , m v, -i..;,. |

--i i PAeCOrdingly,.- .thtf ■ del erm-iiiation-.ofithe ¡Appellate Term, should: be5 réveiSéd, Avitlicbsts -t d'dlre kppfeiiant,' and the final order of the ilutiicidal C ni v t ‘‘.1 i i: f AT óT' o’f thfeti'ahdlox'd reinstated.'';‘ !,j

Peck, P. j\, GlennOn, Valla iian and Van Vooehis, Jjl, concur; SmEk1TÁG,‘ J1., ‘dissents1 arid Vote's "fti'affirm. “!

Deteniiination of the Appellate Term reversed, with costs to thé'kppéílhilf atid1'tíie 'finalhidev of the Municipal Gdurt in favor Of' the'Ikndldfd1 ’Reinstated.i!¡■ Settlfe1 order Onnotice:- [See'11277’ l!:i 11- A-1-

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

Per Curiam.

The landlord in this proceeding is the lessee of an entire building under a ten-year lease terminating September 14, 1953. It sublet a portion of the premises to the tenant herein for a term which ended on January 14, 1949, and it now seeks to recover possession of the tenant’s space for its own [522]*522use; _ The proceeding is brought under paragraph 1 of subdivision (hi) of section 8 of the Business Rent Law (L. 1945, tóÍáH§ % s^Mil^k-as added j>y,L,,1^46, .,fih,;27§?i|is2i) ,, M ,T:; Trior to^M^eiil, &)r ¡adding the pro visions of sub^^sipn ((h);, pf, section^ ,to:,;the Business Rent . ..íhbmuw 86M883W mi ü ammis-j@ «iíoixr the business to he carried on m the

„ By the enactment of subdivision (h) the light to maintain .such ,8 mfi-aas.-jobifr’.ii' íi'ntOiíi.i;.'-,r. vu i;-)¡j[¡¡i'-uu amre&feV’l Viuimyjn iu , tests® MBaBiessimder paragr&pihd of subdivision (h)j. Siicgitheipioyisipns ¡of,.subdivision- (id) circumscribing the,.right feipossession Iveremot-repeated in--subdivision (h)y!lhe:;ques-tion ááipreserited! as # yrhetbefrhd1)1 añd'fh,)Ih#é(-tiO;bhíi’,éád togbth'bLs© ;ilahdlb'í,d:5hedkitl#r)oyshssii'(1)iüiTólr''.,i<t^ ‘Own M^éfwbraih^hW’bhbíhb^'wi'ch'li ^idpb'yy p’ft nathorigedito,. muintpiu i proceedings. for étoeiaSec^yeryí ©fr.businésS! spade ítheiiLegislMureüdid-xno't ihteÉíd tfteSsesbeíiefitedHby the* amendment to have-giehterTights thahthi ÉvtolFb ftíW&jjftop&rjkfl! .Wé'fiávfe ¿tíreátljf§iciheld íít‘1 b'í’ti&déflíW 9..M .Qi.-tófiíül íht'Jyií-- y> JL _ ,b\ (/w of section •Oririqlt'j yiu 2 35t«V«l,V *ii U J5), O plrnymmbm F _ ____n 8. ' (224 West 27th Street Corporation v. Lieberman, 272 App. Div. 725)Í BÍÉt'thust be’bqtiié'íii: ihihd'that'the' 'p’rffpose -tení'dfgeiidyfllbg&lhtidn>‘ivatsi. tbní- 6tihbtlti$é,,6'xris1íifii9,,,áiml # k ti ___,^j-j. ... ri<l .blpe<^á"m'vííseó:f9W0rbitéht!'rétíts'tan'd(*wides,preádlevi'G’táonsi^ miler fbeimlíbrtagé 'of-ibusihbkk; Space!• .'continried (Matter of fifth Madison Corp. [New York Tel. Co.[ 297 N. Y. 155, 160)r ffitfbei. dawnmffiorSs upibtéctóbSilotóin tenaütsíl'diñf posse's; Mo#ánd!stiiñp'óratiíyi «suspends thb ivightá'ióf ? thdséí PÜtitl'ed to possession. Anyí®Ml&td%hdimstitufé4k!-pii''ó'éfeé’,dib.gi,tt)iré,é5Vdi hiisincissspaceTor-lts ovvii us.e, seeks to oust-a tonántiif possession -ahíti itábe refere must meet- the -requirements imposed; V There- is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between a landlord-whose EÉptóWFÍ1* is predicated upon a leasehold. Both see^^^m^r^ thfeteñf bhk bndbld; ¿id h^btfaf f ^tó* tHeibiihbdfee J@f lSí$ aífdWéSBtéhtídii óf fhh(fe‘é^\sfafnfo'y ^ -^5 d'j!

'ihtéreí#lh‘th¿ ífli^átiheíit á#"h'indeñti¿ry fdquíf ehléht^aiidí rihéd5"n'otrheu ¿pb1 «j.Vr IS' [523]*523eifically alleged in,!ithe petijtipn,, Jn respect,an allegation that the space:,is, sought, fop tk.e .landlord 5s ¿Sown.immediate and-pern fíonal use. ’ ’ is sufficient. • Such an allegation is contained in the1 petition in this caSe. The proof in support thereof establishes ffiatitife/Ríidlferd,’’s is’^rekltér/tháh'the^hiinith IjV tlie Statute^ jit ájJ>peatjad-t/5.except,xor d^SvPordioniipccu'pied byiitheitpnantjiithe .entire::buil4ingris':Usod.!hy.:ithe;r.landlord,in its¡ business -1 which'1 consists1 ofRrentiiig -its - pRemisek-íoñ sporting events, dances, cPnvehtiqilk, banquets -knxl the like.' It is its sole pl^cé'pf business! ' The landlord contends that it could improve ltd,pdsipees^,íf, Ifdiad.qío.eseetiiop.pf' t,hp dpiLapt ’e, Ip.^ce. By till?; proceeding, it seeks-to .recover, possession. - of .-such ¡space - for. the. purpose of using it to expand its business. It is, therefore,- the ffijté oWei-'ot tIfd 'bííyiiicfé'g'|)íbpBsed'tC)i bC'cai'riéd’bítí ill the-space "PÍ?'1\®M^.íí-,^]lií'i.í’"--tí^''ipO^’jilVpitósf’in tlie inyestmeiítf yiip hltpatíqhb.étiveen tíie, laiidlordVpcl .íiis,crémtoi;k need not he Considered.1 „■< ... ?• r. ¡mu - -«u, :i1 v > ¡i-.:.... --v i,»,.

;-i,-Thfe fqiiestion o-l'the landlc)rd'’-s - good1 faith is a - quéstioii" of'fact which W'as submitted to the jtivy oil a proper charge and itsverdi^tin11 j^vor ]"pf tíin 'JLk^cllprdV i's ‘the evidence. -A'lii»,",, : .ill -fj; ", : i , m v, -i..;,. |

--i i PAeCOrdingly,.- .thtf ■ del erm-iiiation-.ofithe ¡Appellate Term, should: be5 réveiSéd, Avitlicbsts -t d'dlre kppfeiiant,' and the final order of the ilutiicidal C ni v t ‘‘.1 i i: f AT óT' o’f thfeti'ahdlox'd reinstated.'';‘ !,j

Peck, P. j\, GlennOn, Valla iian and Van Vooehis, Jjl, concur; SmEk1TÁG,‘ J1., ‘dissents1 arid Vote's "fti'affirm. “!

Deteniiination of the Appellate Term reversed, with costs to thé'kppéílhilf atid1'tíie 'finalhidev of the Municipal Gdurt in favor Of' the'Ikndldfd1 ’Reinstated.i!¡■ Settlfe1 order Onnotice:- [See'11277’ l!:i 11- A-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-nicholas-sports-center-inc-v-lincoln-square-center-inc-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack