Zazu, Inc. v. Manor

5 Citing cases

  1. ZAZU, INC. v. MANOR

    74 N.Y.2d 616 (N.Y. 1989)

    Decided November 28, 1989 Appeal from (1st dept: 148 A.D.2d 400) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

  2. Landucci v. De La Rosa

    60 Misc. 3d 136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Tenant also admitted at trial that at the time of the rental she knew that there was neither electricity nor gas service nor a useable kitchen at the premises (seeRivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp. , 27 AD3d 361, 364 [2006] ). Even accepting tenant's claim that she asserted a counterclaim for rescission, and that the amount in controversy did not exceed $25,000 (see CCA 213 ), such relief is unwarranted in view of the aforementioned lease provisions (seeZazu, Inc. v Manor , 148 AD2d 400 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 616 [1989] ). Tenant has not interposed any counterclaim seeking a refund of her security deposit.

  3. 1411 IC-SIC Prop. v. GC Coffee LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31628 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Plaintiff relies on Zasu, Inc. v Manor (148 A.D.2d 400, 400-401 [1st Dept 1989]) to argue that a provision in a lease that landlord has made no representations or promises except those contained in the lease or in a writing signed by landlord is sufficient to deny a tenant's fraudulent-inducement claim. Plaintiff claims that, here, no misrepresentations would survive section 27.2 of the lease, which provides that "[a]ll of the representations and obligations of the parties are contained in this Lease," and that modifications to the lease are binding only if they are in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

  4. 1411 IC-SIC Prop. v. GC Coffee LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30646 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Plaintiff relies on Zasu, Inc. v Manor (148 A.D.2d 400, 400-401 [1st Dept 1989]) to argue that a provision in a lease that landlord has made no representations or promises except those contained in the lease or in a writing signed by landlord is sufficient to deny a tenant's fraudulent-inducement claim. Plaintiff claims that, here, no misrepresentations would survive section 27.2 of the lease, which provides that "[a]ll of the representations and obligations of the parties are contained in this Lease," and that modifications to the lease are binding only if they are in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

  5. PURMIL CO., LLC v. CHUK DEY INDIA TOO, INC.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51766 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2008)

    In Zazu, Inc. v. Manor, 148 AD2d 400, 539 NYS2d 348 (1st Dept 1989), the court granted the plaintiff/landlord summary judgment where the lease provided that the landlord made no representations concerning the demised premises and the respondents took the premises as is. This case is directly applicable to the case at bar, because Purmil Company made no representations concerning the use of the premises and, further, the respondent, Chuk Dey India Too, Inc. took the premises as is.