Plaintiff's only argument why it is no longer bound by the sublease is that it was constructively evicted from the premises when defendants refused to admit a cleaning crew it had hired some five months after it vacated the premises for financial reasons. This type of one-time interference with the use and enjoyment of premises does not amount to the substantial and material deprivation necessary to establish a constructive eviction (see Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
