Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NEW STREET ICE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered November 13, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff does not hold an enforceable leasehold in the premises at issue and otherwise dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the New York City Public Development Corporation (PDC) did not have actual authority to bind the City to the terms outlined in the May 1982 Memorandum upon which plaintiff relies or the authority to provide prior written consent to the 1984 sublease in accordance with the requirements of the underlying Restated Lease (see Henry Modell & Co. v. City of New York, 159 A.D.2d 354, 552 N.Y.S.2d 632, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 845, 560 N.Y.S.2d 129, 559 N.E.2d 1288; see also New York City Charter § 384). Nor does it avail plaintiff to argue that PDC had apparent authority to act in these matters on the City's behalf, since plaintiff had the burden of determining the scope of PDC's authority (see Genesco Entertainment v. Koch, 593 F.Supp. 743, 749). Similarly unavailing are plaintiff's arguments that the City should be estopped from denying the enforceability of the sublease, which was expressly contingent upon compliance with the requirements of the underlying Restated Lease (see id. at 753-754; and see Mann Theatres Corp. v. Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co., 94 A.D.2d 466, 464 N.Y.S.2d 793, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 930, 479 N.Y.S.2d 213, 468 N.E.2d 51).
The motion to amend was properly denied. The cause of action for tortious interference with business advantage is plainly without merit since, in light of plaintiff's admission that defendants sought to evict it in furtherance of their redevelopment plan for the South Street Seaport area, plaintiff has no sustainable claim that the complained-of interference was maliciously motivated (see John R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 860, 540 N.Y.S.2d 610).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 19, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)