Bardach v. Mayfair-Flushing Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | MAYFAIR-FLUSHING |
| Citation | 10 N.Y.2d 962,180 N.E.2d 62,224 N.Y.S.2d 281 |
| Parties | , 180 N.E.2d 62 Kurt BARDACH et al., Respondents, v.CORP., Appellant, Formad Realty Corp. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 13 A.D.2d 542, 214 N.Y.S.2d 659.
The plaintiffs, who were tenants of an apartment house, brought an action for a judgment declaring their right to the use of an adjoining vacant parcel of realty owned by one of the defendants, and for injunctive relief.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, Anthony M. Livoti, J., 26 Misc.2d 32, 204 N.Y.S.2d 378, rendered a judgment, and the defendant, which owned the vacant parcel of realty, appealed from the entire judgment which declared that the plaintiffs in common with all persons, who were presently tenants, 'or who may hereafter become tenants,' have an easement on the vacant parcel of realty for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, light and air, and use as a garden, recreation and play area, and which enjoined the defendants from interfering with such easement, and the plaintiffs appealed from so much of the judgment as denied them an extra allowance pursuant to Section 1513 of the Civil Practice Act.
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by deleting the words 'or who may hereafter become tenants' and affirmed the judgment as modified.
The defendant, which owned the vacant parcel of realty, appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the written leases, which contained the entire agreement between the parties, did not give the plaintiffs any rights of easement in the vacant parcel of realty, and that the parol evidence rule prohibited proof of any oral agreement, promise, or representation made prior to or contemporaneously with execution of the leases. The plaintiffs contended in the Court of Appeals that they acquired, by virtue of their tenancies, the use and enjoyment of the vacant parcel of realty.
O'Malley & Boyle, New York City (John J. Boyle and John C. O'Malley, New York City, on the brief), for appellant Mayfair-Flushing Corp.
Barney Rosenstein, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bardach v. Mayfair-Flushing Corp.
-
Rainbow Shop Patchogue Corp. v. Roosevelt Nassau Operating Corp.
...modified as to future tenants and as modified affirmed in 13 A.D.2d 542, 214 N.Y.S.2d 659, and as modified affirmed in 10 N.Y.2d 962, 224 N.Y.S.2d 281, 180 N.E.2d 62; Lemkin v. Guide, 16 Misc.2d 1003, 183 N.Y.S.2d 808, aff'd 8 A.D.2d 944, 190 N.Y.S.2d 638; Lemkin v. Gulde, 25 Misc.2d 144, 2......
-
Rainbow Shop Patchogue Corp. v. Roosevelt Nassau Operating Corp.
... ... Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364, 211 N.E.2d 817). So considered, it is our opinion that the complaint states a cause of action (Bardach v. Mayfair-Flushing Corp., 26 Misc.2d 32, 204 N.Y.S.2d 378, mod. as to future tenants 13 A.D.2d 542, 214 N.Y.S.2d 659, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 962, 224 ... ...
-
Bardach v. Mayfair-Flushing Corp.
...Division, Second Department. June 20, 1966. In a declaratory judgment action (see 13 A.D.2d 542, 214 N.Y.S.2d 659, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 962, 224 N.Y.S.2d 281, 180 N.E.2d 62), plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 23, 1966, 49 Misc.2d 380, 267 N.Y.S......