You are here: / Acceptance of Unsolicited Rent After Expiration of a Lease and After the...

Search Results

/

Acceptance of Unsolicited Rent After Expiration of a Lease and After the Requisite Nonrenewal Notice Does not Waive the Intention Not to Renew or Vitiate the Notice

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined the acceptance of unsolicited rent payments after the lease for a rent-stabilized apartment had expired, and after the tenant had received the requisite nonrenewal notice, did not constitute a waiver of the intention not to renew:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether a landlord’s acceptance of unsolicited rent in the “window period” between the expiration date of a lease and the commencement of a holdover proceeding nullifies a landlord’s previous service of a notice of intention not to renew the lease. We conclude that the acceptance of unsolicited rent in these circumstances does not, by itself, demonstrate an intentional waiver of a previously served notice of intention not to renew the lease and, thus, does not vitiate that notice. Matter of Georgetown Unsold Shares, LLC v Ledet, 2015 NY Slip Op 05185, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/

Change of Venue to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety Properly Granted–Plaintiff Was a Long-Time Senior Employee of Supreme Court in the County Where the Action Was Brought

The plaintiff was employed by Supreme Court Queens County.  For that reason, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted the motion to change the venue from Queens County to Nassau County to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

“To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed” … . A motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion … . Under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff has been employed at the Supreme Court, Queens County, since 2001, first as a court officer, and more recently as a senior court clerk, the Supreme Court providently granted the motions for a change of the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety … . Rutherford v Patel, 2015 NY Slip Op 05170, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/ ,

Promise Made or Advice Given by a Municipal Employee Does Not Give Rise to Equitable Estoppel

The Second Department noted that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied only rarely against municipalities.  Here plaintiff alleged the four-month statute of limitations for redemption (re: a foreclosure action) passed because of a municipal employee’s promise to hold papers submitted in support of an attempt at redemption.  The court held that a promise made or advice given by a governmental employee will not give rise to equitable estoppel: “… [E]quitable estoppel is applied against a municipality performing governmental functions only in the rarest of cases …, and “erroneous advice by a governmental employee will not give rise to an exception to the general rule”… . Wilson v Neighborhood Restore Hous., 2015 NY Slip Op 05176, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/

Supreme Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Attorneys Were Entitled to the Fees Sought by Them—Plaintiff Had Already Paid the Attorneys Nearly the Amount the Case Ultimately Settled For—the Attorneys, Who Had Been Discharged Without Cause, Sought 40% of the Settlement Pursuant to a Contingency Agreement Which Was Entered In Anticipation of Trial

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and ordered a hearing to determine whether respondents-attorneys had received all the fees they were entitled to.  The attorneys had been paid nearly $54,000 by the plaintiff.  Then plaintiff then entered a 40% contingency arrangement prior to trial. The case ultimately settled for $57,500 and plaintiff discharged the attorneys:

An attorney of record who is discharged without cause possesses a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 which constitutes an equitable ownership of the cause of action an attaches to any recovery … . Additionally, “[i]f a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney possesses a common-law retaining lien on the client’s file in his or her possession and is entitled to recover compensation from the client measured by the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, regardless of whether that amount is more or less than the amount provided in the contract or retainer agreement” … . The retaining lien “is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer’s fee or the posting of an adequate security therefor following a hearing” … . “Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled” … . A court may summarily determine that an attorney is charging excessive fees, limit those fees, and discharge the attorney’s liens … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion without holding a hearing to ascertain the amount of fees or reimbursement to which the respondents may be entitled … . The gravamen of the plaintiff’s cross motion was that the charging lien and retaining lien should be vacated because he had already paid the respondents a total of $53,763.99 in legal fees and he did not owe the respondents any additional legal fees. In contrast, the respondents sought to collect a contingency fee of $23,000, which was the full 40% of the $57,500 recovery, without crediting the plaintiff with the $5,000 which should have been credited against the contingency fee pursuant to their agreement. Thus, it appears that the respondents were seeking excessive fees.

Under these circumstances, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the respondents have received all of the fees owed to them for the reasonable value of their services … . D’Ambrosio v Racanelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 05149, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/ ,

Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget

The Second Department determined that the town did not act in bad faith when it abolished petitioner’s position through the enactment of the town budget. The court explained the applicable law:

A public employer may abolish civil service positions to “promote efficiency and economy,” provided that the employer acts in good faith … . Where a public employer has abolished a position, an employee challenging that determination has the burden of proving that the employer engaged in a bad faith effort to circumvent the Civil Service Law … . “Bad faith may be demonstrated by evidence that a newly hired person performed substantially the same duties as the discharged employee” … . “[W]hen there exists a triable issue of fact with regard to bad faith, a full hearing must be held” … .

Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, adoption of a municipal budget may properly serve, under certain circumstances, to abolish an employee’s position … . Matter of Grant v Town of Lewisboro, 2015 NY Slip Op 05187, 2nd Dept 6-17-14

 

/ ,

Requirements for a Finding of Civil Contempt Explained (Not Met Here)

In finding the motion to hold a party in civil contempt was properly denied (no clear and convincing evidence mandate in a subpoena was disobeyed), the Second Department explained the relevant law:

To find a party in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, ” (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” … . Korea Chosun Daily Times, Inc. v Dough Boy Donuts Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05161, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/ ,

There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection of Petitioner’s Bid to Supply a Radio Dispatch System—Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for the Board’s

The Second Department determined the respondent board (fire district commissioners) had a rational basis for rejecting petitioner’s bid for a radio dispatch system. As long as a rational basis for an administrative decision exists it must be upheld.  A court may not substitute its own judgment:

General Municipal Law § 103(1) provides that, in awarding any contract in excess of $35,000, public entities must award the contract to “the lowest responsible bidder.” “The central purposes of New York’s competitive bidding statutes are the (1) protection of the public fisc by obtaining the best work at the lowest possible price; and (2) prevention of favoritism, improvidence, fraud and corruption in the awarding of public contracts'”… . Nevertheless, it is a municipality’s right to determine whether a bid meets its specifications, and that determination is entitled to deference if it is supported by “any rational basis” … . Thus, ” a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion'” … . It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that a bid has been wrongly awarded … .

Here, the board identified three reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s bid: (1) the petitioner did not demonstrate that it had a service location within 20 miles of the fire district; (2) the petitioner offered to supply equipment which differed from the bid specifications; and (3) over the life of the contract, the monthly maintenance costs would render the petitioner’s bid more expensive than Eastern’s. Although the petitioner disagrees with the board’s conclusions as to each of these points, any one of them would provide a rational basis for the rejection of the petitioner’s bid. Matter of Hello Alert, Inc. v East Moriches Fire Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 05189, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/

Co-Tenants of Dog Owner Can Be Strictly Liable for Harboring a Dog with Vicious Propensities—Co-Tenants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Should Have Been Denied

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined the summary judgment motions by co-tenants of the owner of a dog which injured plaintiff should have been denied.  Although the cotenants did not own the dog, there was a question of fact whether the co-tenants “harbored” the dog.  The court further determined a joint trial including the cotenants was proper. The meaning of “harboring” and the proof requirements for “vicious propensities” were explained:

… [W]e hold that cotenants can be held strictly liable for a vicious attack by dogs owned solely by another cotenant, provided that there is evidence that the cotenants participated in the care of the dogs in their household to a sufficient degree to support a finding that they joined with the dogs’ owner in harboring the animals. We further determine that a unified trial is appropriate in this case. * * *

Generally, the owner of a domestic animal who knows or should know that the animal has a vicious disposition or vicious propensity is strictly liable for an injury caused by the animal … . Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensity … . However, no liability can be found against a defendant who neither owned, harbored, nor exercised dominion and control over the animal, and did not permit it to be on or in his or her premises … . * * *

“Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation'” … . “Once this knowledge is established,” the owner or anyone harboring the animal “faces strict liability” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

The owner or harborer of a dog with vicious propensities is not entitled to the benefit of the so-called “one free bite” rule … . Even a dog which has not previously bitten or attacked may subject its owner or harborer to strict liability where its propensities are apparent … .

Knowledge of an animal’s vicious propensities may also be discerned, by a jury, from the nature and result of the attack … . Matthew H. v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 05157, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/

Liability for a Defective or Dangerous Condition on Real Property Must Be Predicated Upon Ownership, Occupancy, Control, or Special Use of the Property—Here Defendant Demonstrated None of Those Factors Applied

The Second Department, finding that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly granted, noted that in order for a defendant to be liable for a dangerous or defective condition on real property the liability must be predicated “upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property …”.  Here no such factors were demonstrated (defendant denied the allegation that it acted as the property manager).  Reynolds v Avon Grove Props., 2015 NY Slip Op 05169, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

/ , ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

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