Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Citation
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Parent Document
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-10-31
Other Sections in This Document (12)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
- Goethals Mobile Park, Inc. v. Staten Island Meadowbrook Park Civic Ass'n, 208 A.D.2d 896 (1994)
Full Text
757 charsF.L.D. contends that the Supreme Court improperly denied its summary judgment motion for possession of the mobile home park and a final judgment for unpaid rent and use and occupation against each of the individual defendants. However, the record is devoid of any proof that the lease between F.L.D., as owner of the mobile home park, and GMP, as prime tenant, has been surrendered or cancelled or is no longer in effect. Therefore, there is neither privity of estate nor privity of contract between F.L.D. and the individual defendant tenants (see, Century Paramount Hotel v Rock Land Corp., 68 Misc 2d 603). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly held that F.L.D. is not entitled to possession or a final judgment for unpaid rent and use and occupation.