Weaver v. Essex Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weaver v. Essex Owners Corp.

235 A.D.2d 369, 652 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 701

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 369 (Weaver v. Essex Owners Corp.) 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

Weaver v. Essex Owners Corp., 235 A.D.2d 369, 652 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about November 29, 1995, which denied plaintiff tenant’s motion for a preliminary injunction and transferred Action No. 1 to Civil Court pursuant to [370]*370CPLR 325 (d), and order, same court (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to stay a Civil Court holdover proceeding commenced by defendant purchaser of the appurtenant shares, and dismissed Action No. 2 challenging defendant landlord’s termination of plaintiff’s lease and sale of the appurtenant shares to the codefendant, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Having failed to seek Yellowstone injunctive relief during the cure period, plaintiff’s motion therefor was untimely and properly denied (Bowman & Co. v Professional Data Mgt., 218 AD2d 637, 637-638). Plaintiff’s claims of harassment are too conclusory to warrant injunctive relief and can be adequately vindicated by an award of money damages in Civil Court. Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims can be interposed as a defense in the codefendant’s holdover proceeding in Civil Court, where complete relief can be afforded plaintiff should his claims have merit (see, Cox v J.D. Realty Assocs., 217 AD2d 179). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about November 29, 1995, which denied plaintiff tenant’s motion for a preliminary injunction and transferred Action No. 1 to Civil Court pursuant to [370]*370CPLR 325 (d), and order, same court (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about April 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to stay a Civil Court holdover proceeding commenced by defendant purchaser of the appurtenant shares, and dismissed Action No. 2 challenging defendant landlord’s termination of plaintiff’s lease and sale of the appurtenant shares to the codefendant, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Having failed to seek Yellowstone injunctive relief during the cure period, plaintiff’s motion therefor was untimely and properly denied (Bowman & Co. v Professional Data Mgt., 218 AD2d 637, 637-638). Plaintiff’s claims of harassment are too conclusory to warrant injunctive relief and can be adequately vindicated by an award of money damages in Civil Court. Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims can be interposed as a defense in the codefendant’s holdover proceeding in Civil Court, where complete relief can be afforded plaintiff should his claims have merit (see, Cox v J.D. Realty Assocs., 217 AD2d 179). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 369, 652 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-essex-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack