28 Cited authorities

Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.
74 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 1,383 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery
Mighty Midgets v. Centennial
47 N.Y.2d 12 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 490 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]t is the rule in New York that such a recovery may not be had in an affirmative action brought by an assured to settle its rights"
People v. Hobson
39 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 458 times
Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation
Holy Props. v. Cole Prods
87 N.Y.2d 130 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 237 times
Holding tenant liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease, where the lease expressly provided that landlord was under no duty to mitigate damages upon defendant's abandonment of the premises or eviction
Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.
82 N.Y.2d 457 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 161 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co., 82 N.Y.2d 457, 605 N.Y.S.2d 213, 626 N.E.2d 29 (1993), a plaintiff brought an action to recover commissions owed to him under a common law breach of contract cause of action, as well as "attorney's fees and liquidated damages" based on a purported "violation of Labor Law section 198."
Nestor v. McDowell
81 N.Y.2d 410 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 137 times
In Nestor v. McDowell, the "central relief" the plaintiff sought was a possessory judgment (seeNestor v. McDowell, 81 N.Y.2d at 416, 599 N.Y.S.2d 507, 615 N.E.2d 991).
Matter of Duell v. Condon
84 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 106 times
In Duell, the landlord argued that the underlying eviction proceeding fell outside the scope of Real Property Law § 234 because the proceeding was based on the tenant's failure to occupy the premises as a primary residence, a requirement mandated by law, not by the terms of the lease.
In the Matter of Dominic Casamento v. Juaregui
88 A.D.3d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 24 times
2011-09-13 In the Matter of Dominic CASAMENTO, respondent,v.Luis JUAREGUI, appellant. Steven De Castro, New York, N.Y., for appellant.Santo Golino, New York, N.Y., for respondent. JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. Steven De Castro, New York, N.Y., for appellant.Santo Golino, New York, N.Y., for respondent. ANGIOLILLO, J. Real Property Law § 234, which governs residential leases, establishes an implied covenant providing a tenant with the right
Oxford Towers v. Wagner
58 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 25 times
In Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Wagner (58 AD3d 422), this Court held that an identical lease provision was not covered by Real Property Law § 234.
Stones Assoc. v. Seymour
48 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 21 times
In Seymour, the renewal lease was offered after the tenancy was deemed to be legally terminated, i.e., by issuance of the warrant of eviction pursuant to RPAPL § 749(3), which was the law prior to enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("HSTPA").

Graham Court Owner's Corp., Appellant,v.Kyle Taylor, Respondent.

28 Cited authorities

Holding that the plaintiff could not recover attorneys' fees from the defendant without express language in the agreement permitting such a recovery

Holding that "[i]t is the rule in New York that such a recovery may not be had in an affirmative action brought by an assured to settle its rights"

Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation

Holding tenant liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease, where the lease expressly provided that landlord was under no duty to mitigate damages upon defendant's abandonment of the premises or eviction

In Nestor v. McDowell, the "central relief" the plaintiff sought was a possessory judgment (seeNestor v. McDowell, 81 N.Y.2d at 416, 599 N.Y.S.2d 507, 615 N.E.2d 991).

In Duell, the landlord argued that the underlying eviction proceeding fell outside the scope of Real Property Law § 234 because the proceeding was based on the tenant's failure to occupy the premises as a primary residence, a requirement mandated by law, not by the terms of the lease.

In Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Wagner (58 AD3d 422), this Court held that an identical lease provision was not covered by Real Property Law § 234.

In Seymour, the renewal lease was offered after the tenancy was deemed to be legally terminated, i.e., by issuance of the warrant of eviction pursuant to RPAPL § 749(3), which was the law prior to enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("HSTPA").