New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
Two cases were brought before the court for resolution.
In the first case:
A New York Probate Lawyer said that on 24 July 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of the action, and denied the defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for consequential damages based on the alleged breach of duty. The defendant appealed.
The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order appealed from, with costs.
A New York Wills Lawyer said that as held in the case of Acquista v New York Life Ins. Co. in 2001, an insured may recover foreseeable damages, beyond the limits of its policy, for breach of a duty to investigate, bargain for and settle claims in good faith. Here, the court’s denial of defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for consequential damages from the alleged breach of such a duty was proper. Defendant has not shown that the proffered exclusion for consequential loss was an applicable provision under the policy. As a rule, consequential loss and consequential damages are not synonymous, as suggested by the defendant.
The defendant’s remaining arguments were also found by the court bereft of merit.
In the second case:
The defendants have occupied a parcel of farm land in Suffolk County for more than 23 years. Sometime in 1981, the defendants entered into a one-year written lease, effective 1 March 1981, with the original owner. However, after a few years, they entered into an oral agreement and the defendants tendered yearly rent to the original owner each spring. Nassau County Probate Lawyers said that on 1 January 1988, the land was deeded to the original owner’s daughter and son-in-law, who did not interrupt the defendants’ possession of the premises or insist on receiving the annual rent payments. The defendants continued to occupy the land and submit the rent payments to the original owner up to the year 2002. In late 2002 or early 2003, following the original owner’s death, the son-in-law told the defendants that he was selling the property and that the defendants no longer had a right to occupy the land. The defendants offered to pay the 2003 annual rent to the son-in-law but he refused to accept it. The property was sold to the plaintiff while the defendants continued to occupy the land.
Staten Island Probate Lawyers said that consequently, plaintiff commenced an action for ejectment against the defendants to remove them from the property, among other things. On 1 February 2005, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment on their counterclaim for a judgment declaring that they occupied the land under a valid year-to-year tenancy which was not terminated by proper notice. The defendants appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the order appealed from, with costs.
Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their counterclaim for a judgment declaring that they occupied the land under a valid year-to-year tenancy which was not terminated by proper notice. Initially, the defendants met their burden of establishing that a year-to-year tenancy was created. The affidavits and photocopies of annual rent checks submitted by the defendants demonstrated the intent of the defendants and the original owner to create an implied periodic tenancy, rather than a tenancy-at-will. However, the defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they did not receive proper notice of the termination of their tenancy. Under such circumstances, the Supreme County properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment on the counterclaim for a judgment declaring that they occupy the subject premises under a valid year-to-year periodic tenancy.
New York Estate Litigation Lawyers or New York Ejectment Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are the people to call when it comes to cases like the above. Our firm has the best legal counsels in the country with extensive experiences in trial practice or litigation. Contact us now for a free consultation and learn what you can do to best resolve your legal problems.