You are here: / / EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST...
, , ,

EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lease provision which provides for attorney’s fees regardless of default or merit unenforceable as unconscionable:

Because the lease provides for attorneys’ fees regardless of default or merit, in a dispute between a residential co-op [The Dakota] and a shareholder tenant [Fletcher] , we find this provision to be unenforceable as unconscionable … . The lease is not “silent as to whether such right is contingent upon the merits of plaintiff’s action” … , but explicitly provides for attorneys’ fees whenever the tenant sues The Dakota. This interpretation is not changed by the description of the fees as “reasonable” … . “Bearing in mind that agreements providing for payment of attorneys’ fees should be construed strictly” … , we will not rewrite the parties’ agreement simply because The Dakota prevailed in the underlying litigation … .”To enforce such a provision would produce an unjust result because it would dissuade aggrieved parties from pursuing litigation and preclude tenant-shareholders from making meaningful decisions about how to vindicate their rights in legitimate instances of landlord default” … . Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 00396, First Dept 1-28-25

Practice Point: A lease provision which requires a tenant to pay attorney’s fees regardless of default or merit is unconscionable and will not be enforced even where the landlord won the underlying litigation.

 

You might also like
A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS WHETHER DEFENDANT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STABBED BY A PATIENT OF THE FACILITY SHORTLY AFTER DISCHARGE.
“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION.
Allegation in Notice of Claim that Defendant Failed to Maintain a Stairway Was Sufficient to Encompass the Allegation the Handrail Was Obstructed and Could Not Be Used
THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.
PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A 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

PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR... IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT,...