From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Sep 21, 1973
79 Misc. 2d 168 (N.Y. App. Term 1973)

Opinion

September 21, 1973

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, EDWIN KASSOFF, J.

Samuel Steinberg for appellant.

Tawn Seabrook, respondent pro se.


MEMORANDUM.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.

In our opinion, the lessor failed to satisfy its implied promise to deliver possession of the premises on the date fixed by the lease for the commencement of the term, or within a reasonable time thereafter (cf. Real Property Law, § 223-a; Rein v. Metrik Co., 200 Misc. 231; Hartwig v. 6465 Realty Co., 67 Misc.2d 450 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]). Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the doctrine of unconscionability (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-302), relied upon by the court below as a basis for plaintiff's recovery (see Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., 72 Misc.2d 6), should be applied.

Concur — GROAT, P.J., RINALDI and CONE, JJ.


Summaries of

Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Sep 21, 1973
79 Misc. 2d 168 (N.Y. App. Term 1973)
Case details for

Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TAWN SEABROOK, Respondent, v. COMMUTER HOUSING CO., INC., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Sep 21, 1973

Citations

79 Misc. 2d 168 (N.Y. App. Term 1973)
363 N.Y.S.2d 566

Citing Cases

Rock v. Klepper

Applying these principles to landlord-tenant cases, the Court in Seabrook v Commuter Housing Co., 72 Misc 2d…

Bonham Strand, LLC v. Paredes

The fact that Respondents signed a Rider with unconscionable late fees is to no avail. As the Court noted in…