Bldg Mgt. Co., Inc. v Halabi

Annotate this Case
[*1] Bldg Mgt. Co., Inc. v Halabi 2014 NY Slip Op 51186(U) Decided on August 5, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 5, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
14-062/063

Bldg Management Co., Inc. Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross-Respondent, -

against

Joseph Halabi, Defendant-Respondent- Cross-Appellant.

Plaintiff, as limited by its briefs, appeals and defendant cross-appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered August 2, 2013, as denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered August 2, 2013, modified to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

While an exchange of emails may constitute a binding contract (see e.g. Stevens v Publicis S.A., 50 AD3d 253, 255-256 [2008]), the email exchange here at issue — by which defendant-tenant purported to agree to "split the cost" of certain bedbug extermination and related expenses incurred by plaintiff-landlord — created no enforceable contractual rights. The parties' cost-sharing arrangement served to dilute the landlord's statutory obligation to remedy a rent-impairing condition of which it had notice, and thus was "void as an attempt to circumvent [the] warrant[y] of habitability" (Fraley Realty Corp. v Stocker, 115 Misc 2d 52, 53 [App Term, 1st Dept 1982]; see Real Property Law § 235-b[2]).

The parties' remaining contentions, to the extent preserved for appellate review, lack merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: August 05, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.