Tamco Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tamco Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric America, Inc.

190 A.D.2d 623, 594 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1690

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered August 5, 1992 which granted motions by the third-party defendants for dismissal of the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that third-party plaintiff, a remote subtenant, cannot avail itself of any provisions in the prime lease between the third-party defendants, both [624]*624because of the absence of privity (see, Sims v Darwood Mgt., 147 AD2d 373), and the fact that third-party plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary, the landlord having neither undertaken a duty to remote subtenants, nor intending to confer any benefits on remote subtenants (see, Garland v Titan W. Assocs., 147 AD2d 304, 309).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered August 5, 1992 which granted motions by the third-party defendants for dismissal of the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that third-party plaintiff, a remote subtenant, cannot avail itself of any provisions in the prime lease between the third-party defendants, both [624]*624because of the absence of privity (see, Sims v Darwood Mgt., 147 AD2d 373), and the fact that third-party plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary, the landlord having neither undertaken a duty to remote subtenants, nor intending to confer any benefits on remote subtenants (see, Garland v Titan W. Assocs., 147 AD2d 304, 309).

We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Tamco Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric America, Inc., 190 A.D.2d 623, 594 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 623 (Tamco Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric America, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related