Stirling v. 107 Oakland Place, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stirling v. 107 Oakland Place, Inc.

133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49998

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 523 (Stirling v. 107 Oakland Place, 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

Stirling v. 107 Oakland Place, Inc., 133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 for failure to state a cause of action. With respect to the sixth cause of action asserting a violation of Real Property Law § 235-f, plaintiff has failed to allege damages. Although he does allege that he expended attorney’s fees in opposing the eviction notice and bringing this action, under the general rule, absent an express contractual allegation or specific statutory authority, such expenses are not recoverable as an item of damages (see, Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5; Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 NY2d 12, 21-22; Dunkel v McDonald, 272 App Div 267, 272, affd 298 NY 586; Clason v Nassau Ferry Co., 20 Misc 315, affd 27 App Div 621). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 for failure to state a cause of action. With respect to the sixth cause of action asserting a violation of Real Property Law § 235-f, plaintiff has failed to allege damages. Although he does allege that he expended attorney’s fees in opposing the eviction notice and bringing this action, under the general rule, absent an express contractual allegation or specific statutory authority, such expenses are not recoverable as an item of damages (see, Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5; Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 NY2d 12, 21-22; Dunkel v McDonald, 272 App Div 267, 272, affd 298 NY 586; Clason v Nassau Ferry Co., 20 Misc 315, affd 27 App Div 621). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 523, 519 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stirling-v-107-oakland-place-inc-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack