Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Inchaustegui v. 666 5th Avenue Limited Partnership
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
268 A.D.2d 121, 706 N.Y.S.2d 396, 725 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2001)
A landlord might require tenants to maintain insurance, protecting the landlord from liability to third parties injured on leased premises.
We explore the repercussions of a tenant's failure to comply in Inchaustegui versus six six six Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership.
Petrofin Corporation subleased office space from landlord six six six Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership.
The lease included an insurance procurement provision requiring Petrofin to maintain general liability insurance listing the landlord as an insured party. Petrofin purchased insurance, but didn't list the landlord.
The landlord learned this and obtained its own insurance.
Rosario Inchaustegui was injured while in Petrofin's leased space.
He sued the landlord. The landlord filed a third party claim against Petrofin, arguing Petrofin breached the lease.
The landlord wanted Petrofin to indemnify, meaning reimburse the landlord for any damages paid to Inchaustegui and to pay the costs of defending the lawsuit.
The trial court granted summary judgment in the landlord's favor, but limited damages to the cost of the landlord's insurance policy.
The landlord appealed to the appellate division.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/inchaustegui-v-666-5th-avenue-limited-partnership
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/inchaustegui-v-666-5th-avenue-limited-partnership
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Inchaustegui v. 666 5th Avenue Limited Partnership
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
268 A.D.2d 121, 706 N.Y.S.2d 396, 725 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2001)
A landlord might require tenants to maintain insurance, protecting the landlord from liability to third parties injured on leased premises.
We explore the repercussions of a tenant's failure to comply in Inchaustegui versus six six six Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership.
Petrofin Corporation subleased office space from landlord six six six Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership.
The lease included an insurance procurement provision requiring Petrofin to maintain general liability insurance listing the landlord as an insured party. Petrofin purchased insurance, but didn't list the landlord.
The landlord learned this and obtained its own insurance.
Rosario Inchaustegui was injured while in Petrofin's leased space.
He sued the landlord. The landlord filed a third party claim against Petrofin, arguing Petrofin breached the lease.
The landlord wanted Petrofin to indemnify, meaning reimburse the landlord for any damages paid to Inchaustegui and to pay the costs of defending the lawsuit.
The trial court granted summary judgment in the landlord's favor, but limited damages to the cost of the landlord's insurance policy.
The landlord appealed to the appellate division.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/inchaustegui-v-666-5th-avenue-limited-partnership
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/inchaustegui-v-666-5th-avenue-limited-partnership
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries





![Charles v. Barzey Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Charles v. Barzey
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
[2002] UKPC 68 (2002)
Property law recognizes multiple types of interests in real property. But in Charles versus Barzey, we explore whether there are limits to the types of property interests that courts will recognize.
Iris Charles owned two properties on Cork Street in Rousseau, Dominica.
When Iris wrote her will, she was living in the property known as number nine. The other property known as number eighteen included a residence and an addition with a garage and storeroom.
For many years, Iriss nephew, John Charles, used the addition as a storage facility for his pharmaceutical business located next door.
Iris will stated that upon her death, number nine was to pass to John. Number eighteen was devised to Johns sister, Yvette Barzey, and the garage and storeroom were given to John to use as long as he wished. After Iriss death, Barzey filed a judicial action in Dominica seeking a declaration that the will gave her unencumbered title to number eighteen. She argued that John had no legal interest in the property because any interest in the garage and storeroom would be clearly inconsistent with Iris device to Barzey.
The trial court held that Barzey took number eighteen in fee simple subject to John having a life estate in the garage and storeroom.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/charles-v-barzey
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/charles-v-barzey
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Charles v. Barzey Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Otq3WmkbgiA/mqdefault.jpg)




