ZCWK Associates v. Spadaro

233 A.D.2d 126, 649 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11394
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 126 (ZCWK Associates v. Spadaro) 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
ZCWK Associates v. Spadaro, 233 A.D.2d 126, 649 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered June 21, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[127]*127The motion court correctly held that plaintiff landlord’s "self-help” action in changing the locks to the demised premises, thereby impeding defendants’ access and use thereof prior to the rent commencement date, and therefore prior to any default by defendant tenant, was a breach of the lease that suspended the tenant’s yet to be incurred obligation to pay rent (see, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77, 82-84). Further, landlord is precluded from recovering against defendant guarantor because the guarantee limited his obligations to the period that the tenant "physically occupied]” the demised premises, and the tenant never came into actual physical possession. The tenant’s forcible eviction claim for treble damages under RPAPL 853 is without merit because the tenant never moved into the premises. We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Weiss v. Bretton Woods Condominium
203 A.D.3d 1100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Tirse v. Andrews
128 A.D.3d 1112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Neustein v. Estate of Neustein
97 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Salem v. US Bank National Ass'n
82 A.D.3d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Golonka v. Plaza at Latham, L. L. C.
270 A.D.2d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Gold v. Schuster
264 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 A.D.2d 126, 649 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zcwk-associates-v-spadaro-nyappdiv-1996.