From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marx v. Kinney System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 1997
236 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

In Marx v. Kinney System, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 336, 654 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1st Dept. 1997), the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department ("the First Department") held that the landlords were barred from seeking damages against the tenant based upon the failure to remove the subtenants upon expiration of the lease because, inter alia, the landlords had acquiesced in the trial court's determination that the subtenant had become the landlord's tenant at sufferance and had proceeded in the trial court against only the subtenant for use and occupancy.

Summary of this case from SPA 77 G L.P. v. MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC

Opinion

February 27, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about October 18, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant Kinney System, Inc.'s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action to the extent of dismissing the claim for use and occupancy for the period from June 12, 1992 through October 31, 1992, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Since plaintiffs abandoned any effort in the Civil Court to obtain further use and occupancy from defendant Kinney based on a violation of the latter's lease covenant to surrender vacant possession, acquiesced in the Civil Court's determination that the subtenant had become plaintiffs' tenant at sufferance ( see, Matter of Arnica Mut. Ins. Co. [Jones], 85 AD2d 727, 729) and proceeded against only the subtenant for use and occupancy in the third holdover proceeding, the instant claim for use and occupancy from Kinney for the period following the latter's legal surrender of the premises is barred ( see, Robbins v Growney, 229 AD2d 356). Moreover, as the motion court pointed out, "in view of the fact that the judgment in [the first holdover proceeding] was ineffective as to the subtenant because of petitioner's failure to effect service upon [the subtenant], it would be inequitable under the circumstances to make Kinney liable for U O owed by [the subtenant] for the period after Kinney surrendered legal possession until plaintiff obtained actual possession from the subtenant".


Summaries of

Marx v. Kinney System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 1997
236 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

In Marx v. Kinney System, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 336, 654 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1st Dept. 1997), the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department ("the First Department") held that the landlords were barred from seeking damages against the tenant based upon the failure to remove the subtenants upon expiration of the lease because, inter alia, the landlords had acquiesced in the trial court's determination that the subtenant had become the landlord's tenant at sufferance and had proceeded in the trial court against only the subtenant for use and occupancy.

Summary of this case from SPA 77 G L.P. v. MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC
Case details for

Marx v. Kinney System, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MOSES MARX et al., Appellants, v. KINNEY SYSTEM, INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 27, 1997

Citations

236 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 20

Citing Cases

SPA 77 G L.P. v. MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC

Nonetheless, there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Motiva is liable to Spa 77 for holdover…