Equity Funding Corp. v. Carol Management Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1971 |
| Citation | 322 N.Y.S.2d 965,66 Misc.2d 1020 |
| Parties | EQUITY FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CAROL MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, New York City (James R. Miller and Eugene H. Feldman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Dreyer & Traub, New York City (Arthur Winoker, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Plaintiff is the tenant and defendant is the landlord under a written lese of office space. The lease provides that the tenant shall not sublet the premises without the consent of the landlord and that the landlord shall not unreasonably withhold such consent.
Plaintiff entered into negotiations with a potential sublessee for sublease at a rental greater than that paid by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant informed plaintiff that it would not consent to the sublease unless plaintiff agreed to execute and deliver to plaintiff, in exchange for plaintiff's consent, a document by which defendant would agree to pay to plaintiff a rent in excess of that provided by the original written lease. Plaintiff executed the document, defendant consented to the sublease, and the sublessee accordingly took possession of the subject premises.
Plaintiff now contends that it was forced to capitulate to defendant's demand for increased rent by the business exigencies of the moment, to wit: the threat of the potential sublessee to withdraw from the negotiations unless the sublease was consummated as scheduled, and the lack of another potential subtenant willing to pay the same rent. Plaintiff further alleges that there were no reasonable grounds, under the terms of the lease, for defendant to withhold consent to its subletting.
Plaintiff by this action seeks a judgment declaring that its consent to the increased rent is void for duress and want of consideration, and further declaring that defendant's consent to the subletting is valid notwithstanding the invalidity of plaintiff's consent to pay higher rent, and for related relief.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a cause of action is not stated.
Defendant contends that even if its threatened withholding of consent to the subletting unless plaintiff acceded to its demand for increased rent was a breach of the lease, still its acts as a matter of law do not constitute duress because, as defendant argues, plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy in the form...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dohring, Application of
...every intendment and fair inference. Schmidt v. Rebhann, 108 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1951); Equity Funding Corporation v. Carol Management Corporation, 66 Misc.2d 1020, 322 N.Y.S.2d 965 (Sup.Ct. NY Co., 1971). Bearing that in mind, the relevant facts of this case are as CVC Products, Inc. is a corpor......
- VanAernem v. Saratoga County
-
Equity Funding Corp. v. Carol Mgt. Corp.
...(Asch, J.), unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. No opinion. 66 Misc.2d 1020, 322 N.Y.S.2d 965. STEVENS, P.J., and CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN, McNALLY, and STEUER, JJ., ...