We reject the landlord's argument that the tenants are not entitled to the refund they seek simply because the lease does not expressly provide therefor. To hold otherwise would allow the landlord to realize a profit from the tenants' compliance with a clause that was not intended to provide the landlord with a windfall (cf., Fairfax Co. v Whelan Drug Co.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
RUDD v. 176 WEST 87TH STREET OWNERS CORP.
283 A.D.2d 202 (2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 299
MARK S. RUDD et al., Respondents, v. 176 WEST 87TH STREET OWNERS CORP., Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided May 8, 2001.
Decided May 8, 2001.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.