Case ID: misc2d_79/html/0168-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tawn Seabrook, Respondent, v. Commuter Housing Co., Inc., Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    September 21, 1973.
    
      
      Samuel Steinberg for appellant. Tawn Seabrook, respondent pro se.
    
   Memorandum. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

In our opinion, the lessor failed to satisfy its implied promise to deliver possession of the premises on the date fixed by the lease for the commencement of the term, or within a reasonable time thereafter (cf. Real Property Law, § 223-a; Rein v. Metrik Co., 200 Misc. 231; Hartwig v. 6465 Realty Co., 67 Misc 2d 450 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]). Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the doctrine of unconscionability (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-302), relied upon by the court below as a basis for plaintiff’s recovery (see Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co., 72 Misc 2d 6), should be applied.

Concur — Groat, P. J., Rinaldi and Cone, JJ.