Runfola v. Cavagnaro, 78 A.D.3d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Runfola v. Cavagnaro, 78 A.D.3d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. Ross Metals Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Given the absence of an acceleration clause in the agreement, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that he was entitled, under a theory of anticipatory breach, to the disputed monthly payments which had not yet accrued (see Runfola v Cavagnaro, 78 AD3d 1035, 1035 [2010]; Acacia Natl.
discussed Cited "see" 23 E. 39th St. Dev., LLC v. 23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Accordingly, "a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" ( Sciangula v Montegut , 165 AD3d 1188 , 1190 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d at 269 ; Chapman Steamer Collective, LLC v KeyBank N.A. , 163 AD3d 760 , 761). "[N]o action can be brought for future rent in the absence of an acceleration clause" ( Beaumont Offset Corp. v Zito…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Agatina Runfola
v.
David Cavagnaro, (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 23, 2010.
78 A.D.3d 1035
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover upon a personal guaranty, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ajello, J.H.O.), dated July 6, 2010, which, upon a decision of the same court dated April 20, 2010, made after a trial on the issue of liability, and upon a separate decision dated June 14, 2010, made after an inquest on the issue of damages, is in favor of her and against the defendants in the principal sum of only $29,117.70.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court’s calculation of damages was not erroneous. In its decision dated April 20, 2010, which addressed the issue of liability, the Supreme Court correctly determined that because the lease in question does not contain an acceleration clause, the defendants were not liable to the plaintiff landlord, pursuant to their personal guaranty of the subject lease, for any rent deficiency that had not yet accrued (see Long Is. R.R. Co. v Northville Indus. Corp., 41 NY2d 455, 465 [1977]; Barr v Country Motor Car Group, Inc., 15 AD3d 985, 986 [2005]; 210 W. 29th St. Corp. v Chohan, 13 AD3d 613 [2004]; Beaumont Offset Corp. v Zito, 256 AD2d 372 [1998]; Muss v Daytop Vil., 43 AD2d 945 [1974]). Accordingly, in the judgment appealed from, the court properly awarded the plaintiff damages only for the rent deficiency that had already accrued by the filing date of her complaint (see Barr v Country Motor Car Group, Inc., 15 AD3d at 986; Beau[*1036] mont Offset Corp. v Zito, 256 AD2d at 372; Muss v Daytop Vil., 43 AD2d at 945). Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.