Cohen v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1984
• Citation: 485 N.Y.S.2d 745,64 N.Y.2d 728,475 N.E.2d 116
• Parties: , 475 N.E.2d 116 Bertram COHEN et al., Appellants, v. BROWN, HARRIS, STEVENS, INC., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 745

485 N.Y.S.2d 745

64 N.Y.2d 728, 475 N.E.2d 116

Bertram COHEN et al., Appellants, v. BROWN, HARRIS, STEVENS, INC., et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 20, 1984.

John Van Der Tuin, New York City, for appellants

M. William Scherer, New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division, 99 A.D.2d 732, 472 N.Y.S.2d 358, brought up for review with it should be affirmed, with costs.

This case involves a dispute over two rooms in the building located at 180 East 79th Street in Manhattan in which plaintiffs own a residential cooperative apartment. Plaintiffs have rented the two rooms for $50 per month per room for the benefit of their maids since 1979; however, there has never been a written lease between the parties. In 1982, the cooperative's board decided that the maids' rooms could be put to a more profitable use and sent letters to all tenant-stockholders stating that the board had decided to assign shares to the maids' rooms and sell them. The letter solicited sealed bids for purchase of the rooms. Plaintiffs protested the board's offering plan and were given the opportunity to buy the shares at $20,000 per room. Plaintiffs initially agreed to that price but negotiations broke down over the cost of maintenance and the board's offer was withdrawn. Upon investigation of its alternatives, the board discovered that the two rooms in question could be combined with two other rooms and the group of rooms could be rented as a professional office for approximately $1,500 per month. In order to pursue this course, the board sent plaintiffs a 30-day notice advising them that their tenancy would terminate as of November 30, 1982. This action for injunctive and declaratory relief followed.

Special Term denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to join the two maids as necessary parties. In addition, the action was stayed for 90 days to allow defendants an opportunity to commence holdover proceedings in Civil Court. Instead, defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, which court reversed the order of Special Term on the ground that the maids were not indispensable parties, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that there were no factual or legal arguments presented to preclude such relief.

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to relief based on several theories.

First, they urge promissory estoppel based upon their claim that at the time they purchased their cooperative apartment, representatives of defendants told them that the existing occupants of the maids' rooms would be permitted to retain occupancy until they voluntarily relinquished the rooms and that when the rooms became available, plaintiffs would be entitled to lease the rooms for "so long as they desire and need to do so." Plaintiffs further contend that in reliance on the promise of continued occupancy, they expended "thousands of dollars" and made "substantial, permanent...