200 Eighth Avenue Restaurant Corp. v. Daytona Holding Corp.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rockwell Mining, LLC v. Pocahontas Land LLC (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 2024)
- NNA Restaurant Management LLC v. Eshaghian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- 8902 Corp. v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Purdue Pharma, LP v. Ardsley Partners, LP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- 767 Third Avenue, LLC v. Kadem Capital Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered November 16, 2001, which, in this action seeking a declaration as to the propriety of defendant landlord’s refusal to consent to an assignment of the subject lease by plaintiffs-respondents to plaintiff-appellant 200 Eighth Avenue Restaurant Corp., granted defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment, declaring in its favor with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The declaration in defendant’s favor was proper. Plaintiff-appellant Restaurant Corp., as a proposed assignee of the lease between defendant landlord and plaintiffs-respondents, was not in contractual privity with defendant, and thus was without recourse under the lease for defendant landlord’s alleged wrongful withholding of consent to the proposed assignment. In any event, defendant’s refusal to consent to the assignment was reasonable and therefore in accordance with the lease, since the proposed assignee did not timely tender adequate financial background information to enable defendant to ascertain whether it would be a financially responsible tenant (see, Astoria Bedding v Northside Partnership, 239 AD2d 775, 776). Moreover, the financial information ultimately submitted by the proposed assignee, following defendant’s rejection of the proposed assignment, demonstrated that the proposed assignee was not financially capable of assuming the obligations of the lease. Contrary to plaintiff-appellant’s argument, there is no evidence that defendant waived its right to refuse to consent to the assignment on the ground of the proposed assignee’s fail
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.