From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stepet Card and Gift, Inc. v. Matejka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1984
106 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 24, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Defendants did not present any evidence to establish their alleged defense of fraud in the inducement and in the execution of the written lease agreement relied upon by plaintiff (see, generally, Jo Ann Homes at Bellmore v. Dworetz, 25 N.Y.2d 112, 120-121). We agree with Trial Term that if any fraud was perpetrated upon defendants it was not by plaintiff but "by * * * defendant's [ sic] prior attorney and by the previous tenant".

Contrary to defendants' assertions, we likewise agree with Trial Term that based upon the testimony of the parties and documentary evidence submitted at trial, the parties entered into a valid written lease agreement modified by a written "THIRD RIDER" which were both properly executed by all of the parties (see General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 2). That the written agreement in question was a valid lease and not merely a draft was further evidenced by the unequivocal actions of the parties; that is, entry into possession and payment of rent by plaintiff and its acceptance by defendants pursuant to the terms of the challenged lease agreement, and further, by the continued occupancy of the premises by plaintiff. Titone, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stepet Card and Gift, Inc. v. Matejka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 1984
106 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Stepet Card and Gift, Inc. v. Matejka

Case Details

Full title:STEPET CARD AND GIFT, INC., Respondent, v. STANLEY MATEJKA et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 24, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Neydavood v. Zorzy

That appeal was pending on April 25, 1984, when the subject contract to sell the gift store was consummated.…

Brook Shopping Centers v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

He also admitted that, by virtue of Brook's acceptance of rent with such knowledge, Brook had an agreement…