Paterno v. Carroll
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | PETER B. SKELOS |
| Citation | 905 N.Y.S.2d 653,75 A.D.3d 625 |
| Parties | John PATERNO, respondent-appellant, v. John CARROLL, et al., appellants-respondents. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2010 |
75 A.D.3d 625
John PATERNO, respondent-appellant,
v.
John CARROLL, et al., appellants-respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
July 27, 2010.
Neal J. Roher, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants-respondents.
Fine & Bassik, Great Neck, N.Y. (Patricia N. Reich of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated October 19, 2009, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on their counterclaims to recover their security deposit and to recover damages for breach of the lease, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the defendants' counterclaims and to strike the defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment on their counterclaim to recover their security deposit, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In July 2006 the defendants, John Carroll and Lisa Heberley Carroll (hereinafter together the Carrolls), entered into a one-year lease with the plaintiff landlord, John Paterno, for a three-floor, three-bedroom condominium in Manhasset (hereinafter the condo), and gave Paterno the sum of $18,000, representing a $12,000 security deposit, plus the first month's rent in the sum of $6,000. The lease provided the Carrolls with an option to extend the lease for one year with rent in the sum of $6,100 per month, and that the Carrolls must exercise the option by written notice on or before April 30, 2007. The Carrolls did not exercise their option by April 30, 2007, but on May 17, 2007, Paterno wrote the Carrolls to ask them whether they wished to renew the lease for rent in the sum of $6,100 per month. The defendant Lisa Heberley Carroll (hereinafter Lisa) faxed Paterno a signed statement asserting that
On or about July 25, 2007, Lisa allegedly discovered mold on the ceiling of the master bedroom in the condo. She subsequently
Subsequently, the Carrolls requested the return of their security deposit. When Paterno failed to return it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubman v. Osuchowski, 761
...an inference that the security deposit funds were commingled in violation of section 7–103(1) is permitted (see Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 628, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2d Dept. 2010] ), and the plaintiff may seek the " ‘immediate’ return [of the security deposit] notwithstanding that [the......
-
Harlem Capital Ctr., LLC v. Rosen & Gordon, LLC
...with personal funds (Dan Klores Assoc. v. Abramoff, 288 A.D.2d 121, 733 N.Y.S.2d 388 [1st Dept.2001] ; see also Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 628, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2d Dept.2010] ; LeRoy v. Sayers, 217 A.D.2d 63, 68, 635 N.Y.S.2d 217 [1st Dept.1995] ), this inference is rebuttable (see......
-
McGee v. Dunn
...that a viable cause of action exists" ( Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156; see 75 A.D.3d 625Cardo v. Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 A.D.3d 930, 932, 817 N.Y.S.2d 315; Beaton v. Transit Facility Corp., 14 A.D.3d 637, 789 N.Y.S.2......
-
Lecaros v. Lecaros, 2014-07573, Index No. 12942/11.
...fees are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Lipton v. Lipton, 98 A.D.3d 621, 622, 949 N.Y.S.2d 501 ; Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 629, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 ; see also Matter of Colin R. [Marsha R.], 101 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 957 N.Y.S.2d 762 ). His remaining contentions are withou......
-
Rubman v. Osuchowski, 761
...an inference that the security deposit funds were commingled in violation of section 7–103(1) is permitted (see Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 628, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2d Dept. 2010] ), and the plaintiff may seek the " ‘immediate’ return [of the security deposit] notwithstanding that [the......
-
Harlem Capital Ctr., LLC v. Rosen & Gordon, LLC
...with personal funds (Dan Klores Assoc. v. Abramoff, 288 A.D.2d 121, 733 N.Y.S.2d 388 [1st Dept.2001] ; see also Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 628, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2d Dept.2010] ; LeRoy v. Sayers, 217 A.D.2d 63, 68, 635 N.Y.S.2d 217 [1st Dept.1995] ), this inference is rebuttable (see......
-
McGee v. Dunn
...that a viable cause of action exists" ( Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156; see 75 A.D.3d 625Cardo v. Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 A.D.3d 930, 932, 817 N.Y.S.2d 315; Beaton v. Transit Facility Corp., 14 A.D.3d 637, 789 N.Y.S.2......
-
Lecaros v. Lecaros, 2014-07573, Index No. 12942/11.
...fees are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Lipton v. Lipton, 98 A.D.3d 621, 622, 949 N.Y.S.2d 501 ; Paterno v. Carroll, 75 A.D.3d 625, 629, 905 N.Y.S.2d 653 ; see also Matter of Colin R. [Marsha R.], 101 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 957 N.Y.S.2d 762 ). His remaining contentions are withou......