From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decker v. Chuang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

July 14, 1992

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in ordering respondent to pay petitioner rent and other charges due to petitioner from his tenant. The tenant was not a party to this proceeding. Respondent was the tenant's sublessee. Petitioner was not in privity of contract because he was not a party to the lease between respondent and the tenant. In addition, because the tenant retained a reversionary interest in the sublease with respondent, there was no privity of estate between petitioner and respondent (see, New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 266 N.Y. 254). Because there was no privity between petitioner and respondent, petitioner cannot recover rent and other charges from respondent (see, Tefft v Apex Pawnbroking Jewelry Co., 75 A.D.2d 891; see also, Stewart v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 102 N.Y. 601; 74 N.Y. Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 719).


Summaries of

Decker v. Chuang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1992
185 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Decker v. Chuang

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM R. DECKER, Respondent, v. YING C. CHUANG, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 14, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Growbright Enters., Inc. v. Barski

an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for…

FOUR CEES JEWELRY INC. v. 1537 REALTY LLC

Thus, there is no privity of contract between defendants and Filigio and Four Cees. Consequently, neither…