From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. Segal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 2000
278 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 14, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 30, 1999, inter alia, awarding plaintiffs use and occupancy against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sharyn A. Tritto, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Keith S. Barnett, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin, Andrias, JJ.


Plaintiffs are entitled to use and occupancy for the entire period that no rent was demanded or paid. Although defendants had occupied the apartment for several years before plaintiffs finally realized that they were not billing defendants and demanded payment of rent, the record amply supports the trial court's finding that plaintiffs did not waive payment of rent (see, Jefpaul Garage Corp. v. Presbyterian Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 442, 446).

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


Summaries of

Goldman v. Segal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 2000
278 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Goldman v. Segal

Case Details

Full title:JANE GOLDMAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. RON SEGAL, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 34

Citing Cases

Moreira v. Faltz

It is well established that courts will condition continued occupancy, during the pendency of an action,…

Levinson v. 390 West End Associates, L.L.C

It is undisputed that Levinson did not pay any rent for occupying the subject apartment for three years, from…