You are here: / / Chronic Nonpayment Not Subject to 15-Day Cure Period; Chronic Nonpayment...
,

Chronic Nonpayment Not Subject to 15-Day Cure Period; Chronic Nonpayment is Treated Differently from Occasional Nonpayment

The First Department explained the legal principles which apply to chronic nonpayment of rent as follows:

…[P]laintiff chronically failed to pay its rent, having forced defendant to bring 10 nonpayment proceedings over the last seven years. This is a breach of a substantial obligation under the lease…, and is a type of default that plaintiff cannot cure within the 15-day cure period provided for in the lease …. Accordingly, plaintiff was properly denied a Yellowstone injunction, since that relief requires a showing that plaintiff is able to cure….  Defendant was not limited to a nonpayment proceeding under the term of the lease that provided for such proceedings for nonpayment. Chronic nonpayment is a violation of a different type than occasional nonpayment. Nor can plaintiff rely on any defect of the notice of default, since no such notice is even necessary for an action based on chronic nonpayment….  Definitions Personal Fitness Inc v 133 E 58th St LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04892, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN A CEILING TILE DROPPED, THE LADDER WIGGLED, AND PLAINTIFF FELL; PLANTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL OF LOANS FOR ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THE REFUSAL MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT PUTTING PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS.
PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).
EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).
THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN BY A NON-FAMILY-MEMBER IN THE ABSENCE OF A TESTIMONIAL HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Finding that No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Needed for Proposed Wind... STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS...