From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorbaro Company v. Capital Video Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 8, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff-landlord commenced this action to rescind a commercial lease with the defendant-tenant after discovering that the defendant intended to use the demised premises primarily to sell videotapes, magazines, and related materials of a sexually-explicit nature. The defendant counterclaimed for damages arising from its eviction from the premises after the plaintiff discovered the intended use of the premises.

The record supports the Supreme Court's finding that the defendant, knowing the consequence of disclosing the true nature of its operation, fraudulently represented its intended use of the leased premises to the plaintiff, and falsely represented that it had no other locations in the State, in order to induce the plaintiff into signing a lease (see, Jo Ann Homes v. Dworetz, 25 N.Y.2d 112; Nathanson Co. v. Marinello, 192 A.D.2d 575, 576). Accordingly, the court properly ordered the lease rescinded. Further, because the defendant was not wrongfully evicted from its leasehold, its counterclaims arising from the alleged wrongful eviction were properly dismissed (see, Dzubey v. Teachers' Coll., 87 A.D.2d 783).

We pass on no other issue.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sorbaro Company v. Capital Video Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Sorbaro Company v. Capital Video Corporation

Case Details

Full title:SORBARO COMPANY, Respondent, v. CAPITAL VIDEO CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 8, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
667 N.Y.S.2d 388

Citing Cases

TREELINE GARDEN CITY PLAZA v. UBS WARBURG REAL ESTATE

To sustain such a cause of action, "there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material fact, which is…

Sokolow, Dunaud v. Lacher

SDMC failed to meet this burden. To sustain a claim for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing…