Rice v. Ritz Assocs., Inc., 447 N.E.2d 58 (NY 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Rice v. Ritz Assocs., Inc., 447 N.E.2d 58 (NY 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Panasia Estate, Inc. v. Tapas y Mas, LLC (nyappdiv, 2024-11-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Panasia Estate, Inc. v. Tapas y Mas, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
To the extent the appraisal went beyond the language of the settlement agreement and determined the market rent by calculating the effective rent during the five-year lease renewal term and proffering a different figure as more appropriate than the determined market rent, the appraisal violated the express language of the settlement agreement and Supreme Court properly rejected it ( see New York Overnight Partners v Gordon , 88 NY2d 716, 721 [1996]; see also Rice v Ritz Assoc. , 88 AD2d 513, 513-514 [1st Dept 1982], affd 58 NY2d 923 [1983]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry H. Rice, Appellant,
v.
Ritz Associates, Inc., Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 17, 1983.
447 N.E.2d 58
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Marvin E. Frankel, H. Richard Penn and Barry G. Felder for appellant., J. Irwin Shapiro and John Drew for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Simons Concur Judge Meyer Taking No Part.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (88 AD2d 513).

As to plaintiff’s contention that by virtue of the lease there was an effective transfer of the air rights of the Rice parcel to the Ritz parcel, thereby constituting an “incumbrance” on the Rice parcel within the contemplation of the[*925] appraisal procedure clause explicitly set forth in the lease which the prevailing appraisers failed to consider in their appraisal, we express no view with respect to it as this issue was not presented to or considered by the trial court. (Farr v Newman, 14 NY2d 183, 188; see, also, Telaro v Telaro, 25 NY2d 433, 438; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 162, p 631.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Simons concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.