You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Baiocco v. Charles H. Greenthal Management

Citations: 220 A.D.2d 322; 633 N.Y.S.2d 10; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10406

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 24, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Lorraine Miller, issued an order on December 29, 1994, which denied the plaintiff tenant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant landlords’ counterclaim for use and occupancy. The court instead granted the defendants summary judgment on their counterclaim, awarding them $4,122.27. The court found no merit in the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants’ failure to initiate holdover proceedings or demand rent during the holdover period should prevent them from seeking payment for use and occupancy. The decision referenced the case 1400 Broadway Assocs. v Lee. Co. to support this conclusion. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were deemed without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal, citing Aguirre v City of New York. The order was unanimously affirmed, with no costs awarded.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court Order

Application: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order without awarding costs.

Reasoning: The order was unanimously affirmed, with no costs awarded.

Arguments Raised on Appeal

Application: Arguments that were not raised in the lower court are deemed improperly raised on appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were deemed without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal, citing Aguirre v City of New York.

Holdover Proceedings Not Required for Use and Occupancy Claims

Application: The court found that the failure to initiate holdover proceedings or demand rent during the holdover period does not bar recovery for use and occupancy.

Reasoning: The court found no merit in the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants’ failure to initiate holdover proceedings or demand rent during the holdover period should prevent them from seeking payment for use and occupancy.

Precedent Citation for Use and Occupancy Claims

Application: The decision cited a precedent case to support the granting of summary judgment for the landlords' counterclaim.

Reasoning: The decision referenced the case 1400 Broadway Assocs. v Lee. Co. to support this conclusion.

Summary Judgment Denial

Application: The court denied the plaintiff tenant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant landlords' counterclaim.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Lorraine Miller, issued an order on December 29, 1994, which denied the plaintiff tenant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant landlords’ counterclaim for use and occupancy.

Summary Judgment Granted for Counterclaim

Application: The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on their counterclaim for use and occupancy, awarding them a monetary amount.

Reasoning: The court instead granted the defendants summary judgment on their counterclaim, awarding them $4,122.27.