Narrative Opinion Summary
Maredin Rest. Corp. appeals a September 20, 1996 order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion to transfer a summary nonpayment proceeding (107-48 Queens Blvd. Holding Corp. v Maredin Rest. Corp., Index No. 65405/96) from Civil Court to the Supreme Court and to consolidate it with related actions concerning lease breach damages. The order is affirmed with costs. The lease prohibits the appellant from filing counterclaims in the summary proceeding, a restriction that cannot be bypassed through consolidation with Supreme Court actions, as supported by precedents (Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio; Hanlon, White Assocs. v Schultz). Other arguments from the parties were deemed without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson, and Friedmann, JJ. concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consolidation of Actions in Summary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that consolidation of the summary nonpayment proceeding with related actions in Supreme Court is not permissible when the lease expressly prohibits counterclaims.
Reasoning: The lease prohibits the appellant from filing counterclaims in the summary proceeding, a restriction that cannot be bypassed through consolidation with Supreme Court actions, as supported by precedents (Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio; Hanlon, White Assocs. v Schultz).
Evaluation of Additional Arguments in Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated other arguments presented by the parties and determined that they were without merit.
Reasoning: Other arguments from the parties were deemed without merit.
Prohibition of Counterclaims in Summary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The lease in question prevents the appellant from filing counterclaims in the summary nonpayment proceeding, and this restriction holds even when the appellant seeks consolidation with related actions in Supreme Court.
Reasoning: The lease prohibits the appellant from filing counterclaims in the summary proceeding, a restriction that cannot be bypassed through consolidation with Supreme Court actions, as supported by precedents (Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio; Hanlon, White Assocs. v Schultz).