Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Citation
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Parent Document
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-03-08
Other Sections in This Document (9)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Committed Community Associates v. Croswell, 164 Misc. 2d 756 (1995)
- Section 235-b
- Section 235-b
- Section 235-b
Full Text
501 charsThe courts generally say that the appropriate measure of damage is the difference between the fair market value of the premises in question if the apartment remained as it was warranted by the warranty of habitability, and as demonstrated by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the apartment during the period of the breach. (See, Bay Park One Co. v Crosby, 109 Misc 2d 47 [1981]; Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, cert denied 444 US 992 [1979].) *7582. Value of the premises