From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hi-Rise Laundry Equipment v. Matrix Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 1983
96 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

August 29, 1983


In an action for a declaratory judgment, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered July 29, 1982, which, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants Matrix Properties, Inc., Matrix Properties, David Twersky, Inc., and David Twersky for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint against said defendants. Order and judgment modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision declaring that the agreement in question dated November 1, 1978, is void as against any person who subsequently purchases or acquires the subject premises located at 420 Shore Road, Long Beach, New York. As so modified, order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The agreement between plaintiff and the former owner of the subject premises was a lease rather than a license. It contained a description of the specific premises to be occupied exclusively by plaintiff, specified the amount of rent to be paid, and provided for a 10-year period of occupancy. In fact, in the agreement the landlord expressly recognized the "agreement as a lease for the above referenced premises, and as such [agreed to] insure the legal rights afforded to such instrument as concerns any conveyance, sale or transfer of the property". Clearly, the language of the agreement establishes that the parties intended that the agreement be a lease (see Polner v Arling Realty, 194 Misc. 598). However, in order for the lease to be valid against subsequent purchasers, section 291 Real Prop. of the Real Property Law requires that it be recorded. As plaintiff failed to record the lease, it is "void as against any person who subsequently purchases or acquires" the property (Real Property Law, § 291). We note that Special Term should have declared the rights of the parties (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, app dsmd 371 U.S. 74; see, also, Zubli v Community Mainstreaming Assoc., 50 N.Y.2d 1024, 1026). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hi-Rise Laundry Equipment v. Matrix Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 1983
96 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Hi-Rise Laundry Equipment v. Matrix Properties

Case Details

Full title:HI-RISE LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT CORP., Appellant, v. MATRIX PROPERTIES, INC., et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 29, 1983

Citations

96 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Sherhan v. Numyal Food

Thus, all of the credible evidence in this case indicates that Numyal occupied the corner store as a tenant,…

Sebco Laundry Sys. v. Oakwood Terrace HSG

ORDERED that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs. The agreements entered into by the parties…