From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amtorg Trading v. Broadway 56th Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1993
191 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

In Amtorg, the Appellate Division held that the IAS Court properly granted consolidation where the party opposing the consolidation failed to establish any prejudice.

Summary of this case from Grzesik v. Sanchez

Opinion

March 4, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.).


Under terms of the Foreign Missions Act ( 22 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.), Amtorg has been treated as a foreign mission of the Soviet Union and its successors and is not permitted to lease real property without the approval of the United States Department of State. Accordingly, in October 1987, the State Department leased the seventh floor of 1755 Broadway, which it then sublet to Amtorg.

Pursuant to the sublease, Amtorg was required to obtain and maintain a $1.5 million letter of credit as security for the primary lease for the benefit of the landlord, Broadway 56th Street Associates (Broadway). On October 31, 1991, the State Department assigned its lease to defendant MLK Nom Corp., a nominee of Broadway. Thereafter, Broadway commenced a summary holdover proceeding on April 6, 1992 against MLK as tenant and Amtorg as subtenant, alleging non-payment of $582,723.04 in rent and additional rent since September 1, 1991. MLK cross-claimed against Amtorg for unpaid rent. In May 1992, Amtorg vacated the premises and counterclaimed against Broadway alleging that it was improperly drawing on the letter of credit.

On August 4, 1992, after the Civil Court indicated that it would uphold Broadway's defense that, pursuant to the terms of the primary lease, no counterclaims were permitted in the summary proceeding, Amtorg commenced this action, alleging conversion of the proceeds of the letter of credit by both Broadway and MLK and breach of contract against MLK, and subsequently moved to remove and consolidate the pending Civil Court proceeding.

It is well settled that consolidation is generally favored by the courts in the interest of judicial economy and ease of decision making where there are common questions of law and fact, unless the party opposing the motion demonstrates that consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. The mere fact that a case may be somewhat delayed by such consolidation will not suffice to bar it (see, Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 128 [2d ed]).

Accordingly, inasmuch as Amtorg has already vacated the demised premises and Broadway is in possession of the proceeds of the letter of credit and the only issues remaining in the summary proceeding seem to be whether Amtorg became a month to month tenant when the State Department assigned its lease to MLK and the amount of rent due, there is no showing of the requisite prejudice by defendants and there appear to be, contrary to the IAS Court's finding, common questions of law and fact presented, warranting removal and consolidation.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Amtorg Trading v. Broadway 56th Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1993
191 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Amtorg, the Appellate Division held that the IAS Court properly granted consolidation where the party opposing the consolidation failed to establish any prejudice.

Summary of this case from Grzesik v. Sanchez

In Amtorg, a subtenant brought an action against the landlord for conversion for improperly drawing on a letter of credit and for breach of contract against the tenant.

Summary of this case from City of New York v. American Home Assur. Co.
Case details for

Amtorg Trading v. Broadway 56th Street

Case Details

Full title:AMTORG TRADING CORP., Appellant, v. BROADWAY 56TH STREET ASSOCIATES et…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 204

Citing Cases

Carroll v. Nostra Realty Corp.

The landlord further points out, inter alia, that according to its reply papers the Civil Court's ability to…

Metropolitan Steel Indus., Inc. v. Perini Corp.

STV does not oppose consolidation of the actions. Consolidation is generally favored in the interest of…