You are here: / / LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL...
, ,

LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE PRO SE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL RAISED A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant tenant raised a question whether the late fees assessed by the landlord constituted usurious interest. The 1st Department heard the appeal despite the pro se defendant’s failure to perfect the appeal from the correct judgment, noting that the issue is purely legal:

… [T]he court should have considered defendant’s argument that the late fees, which along with returned check fees, constitute additional rent under the lease, amount to unenforceable usurious interest rates (see Sandra’s Jewel Box v 401 Hotel, 273 AD2d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2000] [“the late charge provision of the lease . . . while not technically interest, is unreasonable and confiscatory in nature and therefore unenforceable”] … ). Although defendant raised this argument for the first time in reply, we consider it because the issue is determinative and is purely legal … .

Plaintiff defined additional rent as “primarily late fees,” and it appears that the late fee lease provision permitting a 5% charge on amounts due actually resulted in what would amount to a 60% interest rate or higher, depending on plaintiff’s accounting practices. Moreover, even with plaintiff’s voluntary reduction of the late fee to 2%, additional rent comprises nearly half the sum demanded for the relevant 27-month period. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the motion court for a determination whether the late fees were “unreasonable and grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual unpaid rent” … . JW 70th St. LLC v Simon, 2020 NY Slip Op 00042, First Dept 1-2-20

 

You might also like
CITY AGENCY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REPORT SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE AGENCY DID NOT PRESENT PROOF THE PREPARER OF THE REPORT WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENCY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MANDATED BY A 2017 AMENDMENT TO FOIL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).
Janitorial Schedule Alone Not Enough to Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; PLAINTIFF HAD WON AN ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR OVER $200 MILLION AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION AFTER DEFENDANT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (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

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN... AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION...