Rainbow Shop Patchogue Corp. v. Roosevelt Nassau Operating Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1970
• Citation: 310 N.Y.S.2d 231,34 A.D.2d 667
• Parties: RAINBOW SHOP PATCHOGUE CORP., Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT NASSAU OPERATING CORPORATION, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 231

310 N.Y.S.2d 231

34 A.D.2d 667

RAINBOW SHOP PATCHOGUE CORP., Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT NASSAU OPERATING CORPORATION, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 13, 1970.

Irving Coopersmith, New York City, for respondent; Hyman R. Friedman, New York City, of counsel.

English, Cianciulli, Reisman & Peirez, Mineola, for appellant; John M. Armentano, Mineola, of counsel.

Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action by a tenant of a store in a shopping center (1) for a judgment declaring that defendant, the landlord, has no right, in view of the terms of plaintiff's lease, to build a snack-bar kiosk on the mall fronting the store and (2) for an injunction restraining defendant from so doing, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 24, 1969, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements.

In considering the sufficiency of the complaint the court must assume all the allegations to be true (including those (pars. 12--14) to the effect that the kiosk in question would obstruct the view of the demised premises) and, if they state some valid cause of action, the complaint must be sustained (Kober v. 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 N.Y.S.2d 281, 108 N.E.2d 62; Lemkin v. Gulde, 16 Misc.2d 1003, 183 N.Y.S.2d 808, affd. 8 A.D.2d 944, 190 N.Y.S.2d 638; Lemkin v. Gulde, 25 Misc.2d 144, 205 N.Y.S.2d 658; Doyle v. Lord, 64 N.Y. 432; Matter of Hall v. Irvin, 78 App.Div. 107, 79 N.Y.S. 614; 125 Hempstead Turnpike Corp. v. Tracco Hempstead, 14 Misc.2d 554, 177 N.Y.S.2d 788; Bauer v. Schwartz, 122 Misc. 630, 203 N.Y.S. 507; Owsley v. Hamner, 36 Cal.2d 710, 227 P.2d 263; The Fair v. Evergreen Park Shopping Plaza,4 Ill.App.2d 454, 124 N.E.2d 649; Whitehouse v. Aiken, 190 Mass. 468, 77 N.E. 499; 36 C.J., Landlord & Tenant, § 632; 51C C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 293 et seq.; 32 Am.Jur., Landlord & Tenant, § 169 et seq.; 51 A.L.R. 1298).