From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Wallin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3998.

Decided June 24, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which, in an action for ejectment, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for use and occupancy and dismissal of defendant's second counterclaim, and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Amy Wallin, appellant pro se.

Belkin Wenig Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Catterson, JJ.


Factual issues as to who breached the parties' 2001 agreement settling the prior holdover proceeding preclude dismissal of plaintiff's claim for ejectment based on defendant's breach of that agreement ( see Aryeh v. 61 E. 86 Owners Corp., 249 A.D.2d 248). The issue of what, if any, notice of termination defendant was entitled to prior to the commencement of this action is entwined with factual issues that also cannot be determined on this record, including whether the subject unit is covered by the Rent Stabilization Law and whether a landlord-tenant relationship was re-established by the 2001 agreement. To the extent the IAS court stated that a predicate notice was not necessary in this ejectment action, such statement was premature. Defendant's counterclaim for sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress was properly dismissed because plaintiff cannot be held liable for the alleged outrageous conduct of an agent who was acting for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of plaintiff's business ( see N.X. v. Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 N.Y.2d 247, 251; Stallings v. U.S. Elecs., 270 A.D.2d 188), and the complained-of conduct, while unquestionably in poor taste, was not so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency ( see Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 122). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Wallin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Thomas v. Wallin

Case Details

Full title:DUANE THOMAS LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMY WALLIN, Defendant-Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 24, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
779 N.Y.S.2d 466

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Wallin

Although tenant commenced occupancy in 1991, after the Loft Law window period had closed without the subject…

Arellano v. HSBC Bank USA

The allegations raised in support of plaintiffs cause of action for employment discrimination are identical…