Case Law Summaries

Bell v. Tower Management Services, L.P.

LANDLORD-TENANT; DISCRIMINATION —Where a landlord refuses to include the amount of a rental subsidiary a disabled tenant receives from the state as part of that tenant’s qualifying income, the tenant will be given an opportunity to argue the novel disability discrimination theory that the landlord is, in essence, discriminating against the tenant because of the tenant’s disability.

• Opinion Date: April 26, 2010
• Real Property Law

New York SMSA Limited Partnership v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Tenafly

ZONING; TELECOMMUNICATIONS — Where a telecommunications company’s use variance application is not based on the Telecommunication’s Act, the proper test to satisfy the positive criteria is whether the use is particularly suited for that site without imposing any necessity for the applicant to show that the chosen site is the least intrusive site.

• Opinion Date: July 21, 2010
• Real Property Law

Mamacita, Inc. v. Colborne Corp.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT — Even a corporation is considered a person under the Consumer Fraud Act is therefore entitled to sue for unconscionable business practices; merchandise, as defined in the Act, is any object, good, commodity, service or other thing offered directly or indirectly to the public for sale.

• Opinion Date: July 15, 2010
• Business Law

Shelton v. Restaurant.com Inc.

TCCWNA — Where a gift certificate actually only provides an individual with a contingent right for discounted services, it does not constitute a consumer contract covered by the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.

• Opinion Date: June 15, 2010
• Business Law

Centerpoint Group LLC v. Perot System Inc.

CONTRACTS; PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; UNJUST ENRICHMENT — Claims of promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment are mutually exclusive with the existence of a valid contract and unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action.

• Opinion Date: June 15, 2010
• Business Law

Trico Equipment, Inc. v. S.D. Walker, Inc.

CONTRACTS — Where a seller’s ability to deliver a small, independent component of contracted-for goods or services is immaterial to the contract as a whole, and the buyer can easily replace the missing component without extra cost, the buyer cannot rescind the contract on that basis that the insignificant component can’t be delivered by the seller.

• Opinion Date: March 12, 2010
• Business Law

Dhall v. 700 Grove Street Urban Renewal, L.L.C.

CONTRACTS; RESCISSION — An amendment to a contract for the sale of a new condominium unit does not require inclusion of a seven day cancellation notice, as is required of new condominium contracts under law, when the amendment unambiguously provides that it is to become part of the original agreement.

• Opinion Date: June 15, 2010
• Real Property Law

Reyes v. Egner

BROKERS; DUTY TO WARN — Even though a broker’s duty to warn of hazardous conditions at a property is not limited to instances where a broker is holding an open house for potential buyers, where a broker arranges for a rental, but the renters had ample time to inspect the property themselves to find any dangerous conditions, the broker will not be liable for injuries resulting from the dangerous condition at the property.

• Opinion Date: April 8, 2010
• Real Property Law

Westwood Investment Co., LLC v. Bankers Trust Company

TAXATION; FORECLOSURE; NOTICES — Property owners have a duty to make sure that their property taxes are paid and the Tax Sales Law is to be liberally construed so as to bar the right of redemption and allow a foreclosing certificate holder to secure marketable title to the property and tenant-buyers under lease-purchase agreement are not entitled to be served with notice because they are not the record owners of the property.

• Opinion Date: July 20, 2010
• Real Property Law

Jackson Holdings, LLC v. Jackson Township Planning Board

ZONING; CONDITIONAL USES — The Municipal Land Use Law allows municipalities to adopt zoning ordinances to provide for conditional uses, but municipalities may not delegate their powers to municipal planning boards by authorizing their planning boards to approve conditional uses absent clear and ascertainable standards to guide the planning board.

• Opinion Date: July 14, 2010
• Real Property Law