From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tayeh v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 18, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 17, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 24, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 24, 1990, is modified by deleting the tenth decretal paragraph thereof, and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the conditions imposed by the first through ninth decretal paragraphs of the order dated January 24, 1990, shall continue in effect pending the outcome of this action; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff-tenant's lease was terminated by virtue of a warrant of eviction before the plaintiff attempted to exercise his option to purchase the subject real property. However, prior to the issuance of the warrant of eviction, the plaintiff had moved by way of order to show cause for a stay pending appeal of all enforcement proceedings and a stay was in effect at the time the warrant of eviction was issued. Accordingly, the warrant of eviction is a nullity and did not terminate the plaintiff's lease (cf., Young v. Lucas, 1 A.D.2d 754; see also, RPAPL 749). We find that the plaintiff thereafter timely exercised his option to purchase the subject premises on September 28, 1987. However, under the circumstances of this case summary judgment was not warranted as there exist triable issues of fact, including whether the plaintiff was ready and able to perform his obligations as set forth in the option clause of the lease (see, Huntington Min. Holdings v. Cottontail Plaza, 60 N.Y.2d 997; CPLR 3212 [b]).

With respect to the plaintiff's cross-appeal, we find that the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court were an appropriate exercise of discretion and should remain in effect pending the outcome of this action to preserve the status quo. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tayeh v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Tayeh v. Frederick

Case Details

Full title:ALI TAYEH, Respondent-Appellant, v. EDWIN FREDERICK, Appellant-Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 18, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 370

Citing Cases

Mennella v. Lopez-Torres

Respondents, however, argue that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is inappropriate here because the Civil…

2M Realty Corp. v. Robert Boehm

Moreover, the plaintiffs presented evidence of large expenditures on the property in anticipation of their…