You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:

The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25

 

, , ,

IN THIS EJECTMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT-TENANT’S “FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,” “WAIVER,” “CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION,” “BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT,” “IMPROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT,” AND “TRESPASS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined several affirmative defenses in this ejectment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff landlord sought to eject defendant tenant from a parking lot for nonpayment of rent. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff acknowledged, plaintiff had rented certain parking spaces to a third party. The Second Department held: (1) no motion lies to dismiss a “failure to state a cause of action” defense because plaintiff cannot test the sufficiency of its own claim; (2) the “waiver” defense should not have been dismissed despite the “nonwaiver” provision in the lease; (3) the constructive eviction and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment defenses were supported by plaintiff’s renting spaces to a third party; (4) the ‘improper notice of default” defense was supported by the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice called for by the lease; and (5) the “trespass” defense was supported by the rental of spaces to a third party:

CPLR 3211(b) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit.” “When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses ‘are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of [the] case, or fail to state a defense'” … . “‘On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true'” … . “‘Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed'” … . Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v Nader Enters., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06047, Second Dept 11-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for dismissal of an affirmative defense and the elements of “waiver,” “constructive eviction,” “breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment,” “Improper notice of default,” and “trespass” affirmative defenses as alleged by defendant-tenant in this ejectment action brough by plaintiff-landlord.

 

, ,

THE GUARANTY OF RENT DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WAS A “GOOD GUY” GUARANTY; THE GUARANTOR’S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE LANDLORD ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined Mr. Lieberman’s guaranty of the rent due under the commercial lease terminated when the tenant vacated the premises, not when the landlord subsequently accepted the surrender of the premises. The opinion turns on interpreting the language of the guaranty and the lease:

In the world of commercial leases, a “good guy” guaranty is a limited guaranty in which the guarantor’s obligation extends only up to the point that the tenant surrenders the premises to the landlord, leaving the tenant solely responsible for rent due from that point forward … . The question in this case is whether the guaranty at issue operates in that manner. The guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated the premises and, under the terms of the guaranty in this agreement, was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of that surrender. Accordingly, we reverse. * * *

It would be a simple matter for parties intending to enter into a “good guy” guaranty to say so explicitly, with clear language that does not require courts to resort to rules of construction regarding superfluity or canons that aid in determining the parties’ intent. Here, although the parties could have expressed their intent in a much simpler and clearer way and avoided this litigation entirely, we conclude that the guaranty in this case is limited, confining the guarantor’s liability to damages accruing prior to the date the tenant surrendered possession of the Premises. Under the terms of the guaranty, WSA [the tenant] surrendered possession of the Premises on or about November 30, 2020 when it provided 1995 CAM [the landlord] notice, completely vacated the Premises, and relinquished control of the Premises. 1995 CAM LLC v West Side Advisors, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05782, CtApp 10-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an analysis of a “good guy” guaranty of rent due under a commercial lease.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease was entered into by the limited liability company (LLC), the owners of the LLC signed as personal guarantors of the rent payments. Therefore the breach of contract action against the individual owners should not have been dismissed:

“An agent executing a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal ‘is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally'” … . “[T]here [must be] clear and explicit evidence of the agent’s intention to substitute or superadd his [or her] personal liability for, or to, that of his [or her] principal” … . “There is great danger in allowing a single sentence in a long contract to bind individually a person who signs only as a corporate officer” … . A personal guaranty of a corporation’s obligation will be enforced against an individual where it “‘constitute[s] a deliberately stated, unambiguous, and separate expression personally obligating'” the individual under the contract … . * * *

Directly above the … signature lines was a paragraph stating that the parties agreed “[t]hat Roman and Solomon Davydov, are the owners of Tavak LLC, and they will act as personal guarantors for the payment of rent and any other[ ] costs, bills and fees and issues arising from the above enumerated items.” …

The clearly worded language of the guaranty clause made reference to Tavak and to each of the individual defendants by name, was contained in a short, two-page rider, and appeared directly above the rider’s signature lines, which the individual defendants signed without listing their corporate titles. 166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v Tavak, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05054, Second Dept 9-24-25

Practice Point: The owners of a limited liability company which enters a lease can agree to be personally liable for the debts of the LLC by guaranteeing the payment of rent.​

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFECT IN THE STAIRWAY WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defect in the stairway alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was trivial as a matter of law:

,,, ” [A] property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip” … . “‘A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that [an] alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact'” … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the ‘width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury'” … . “There is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or ‘per se rule’ that the condition must be of a certain height or depth in order to be actionable … . “‘Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable'” … .

Here, the photographs of the allegedly dangerous condition, which included measurements taken by the plaintiff’s investigator, revealed that the condition on which the plaintiff allegedly fell was depressed approximately 3/16 of an inch at the edge of the stair on which she fell. Moreover, the plaintiff testified that she had previously traversed the stairway without incident, was aware of the condition of the steps, and was looking down at the stairs as she carried a queen-size comforter when she fell. Under these circumstances, the defendants established, prima facie, that any defect that existed was trivial as a matter of law … . Rene v Livingston Gardens, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05004, Second Dept 9-17-25

Practice Point: Consult this slip and fall decision for an example of a defect in a stairway deemed trivial as a matter of law.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THE DIFFERENT DUTIES OWED BY THE TENANT AND THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ABUTTING THE SIDEWALK; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DAMAGE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURED ANKLE WERE EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The defendants are the owner and tenant in the building abutting the allegedly defective sidewalk where plaintiff fell. The judge’s charge to the jury did not adequately explain how defendants’ duties differed as tenant and landowner. The Second Department also held the damage awards were excessive:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the issue of liability. In charging the jury, the court failed to differentiate between White Castle [tenant] and Asaro [landowner], and failed to identify how their duties differed as tenant and as landowner, respectively. Thus, the court did not “adequately convey[ ] the sum and substance of the applicable law to be charged” … . Due to the possibility that this conflation may have prejudiced either defendant or both defendants, each defendant is entitled to a new trial on the issue of liability against it … . Rendon v White Castle Sys., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04925, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Here the jury instructions did not clearly explain the different duties owed by a tenant versus a landowner with respect to a defective sidewalk abutting the building. The inadequate instructions required that the plaintiff’s verdict in this slip and fall case be set aside.

 

, , ,

HERE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A LOOSE FLOOR TILE IN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this premises liability slip and fall case, determined (1) the motion court should not have considered an argument first raised in opposition to the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant out-of-possession landlord could not be held liable for a loose floor tile in plaintiff’s apartment. The lease between defendant and plaintiff’s landlord made defendant responsible for maintenance of the public areas of the building and plaintiff’s landlord responsible for maintenance of all other areas:

The plaintiff’s allegation that the loose floor tile was caused by a leaky roof was not pleaded, “and a plaintiff cannot raise a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for summary judgment” … .

… [An] “… out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, since the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege a violation of a statute, the defendant cannot be held liable unless he retained control over the premises and owed a duty assumed by contract or a course of conduct … .

“[C]ontrol refers to the ability of an out-of-possession landlord to remedy dangerous conditions” … . “Reservation of a right of re-entry for inspection and repair in a lease may, under certain circumstances, constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability for injuries caused by an alleged hazard” … . In the absence of a statutory violation, there must be a significant structural or design defect present in order for a right of re-entry to constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability … .

Here, the defendant, who had no key to access the building, never visited the second floor, and did not know there were tenants living on the second floor, established, prima facie, that he did not have an ability to remedy the loose floor tile, which was not a significant structural defect … .  Alexandre v Shih T. Wang, 2025 NY Slip Op 04855, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the liability of an out-of-possession landlord for a non-structural defect inside a tenant’s apartment.

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly applied the “pierce the corporate veil” criteria to assess damages for breach of contract against the defendant parent company:

“Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised” … . However, under the totality of the circumstances presented here, we conclude that plaintiffs met their heavy burden of showing that “[JAE] exercised complete domination of [J.A. Madison] in respect to the transaction attacked[,] [specifically the Consulting Agreement]” … . Thus, we will address the second prong of the test – namely, whether plaintiffs met their burden to show “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff[s] which resulted in plaintiff[s’] injury” … . * * *

“Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … .

… The evidence presented at trial showed that JAE used its domination of J.A. Madison to commit a wrong against plaintiffs by stopping payments to plaintiffs under the Consulting Agreement, causing J.A. Madison to become judgment proof, and then by dissolving J.A. Madison after this action had already been commenced, making plaintiffs’ judgment against J.A. Madison nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. The fact that J.A. Madison may have initially been created for a legitimate purpose of operating a store selling Jonathan Adler merchandise and products does not change the analysis. Rich v J.A. Madison, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04818, First Dept 8-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion and the dissent for a comprehensive discussion of the criteria for piercing the corporate veil in the context of a breach of contract.

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOW ACCEPTS THE “CATALYST THEORY” WHICH, UNDER THE NYS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA), ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BY A PARTY WHO INSTIGATES LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE AND THE STATE VOLUNTARILY GRANTS THE SOUGHT RELIEF WITHOUT FUTHER LITIGATION; THE “CATALYST THEORY” APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PARTY “PREVAILS IN WHOLE,” NOT WHERE THE PARTY HAS ONLY “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and overruling precedent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined petitioner was not precluded from an award of counsel fees because the agency petitioner sued, the Office of Temporary and Disability Housing (OTDA), voluntarily granted the relief petitioner sought without the need for further litigation. In so doing, the Third Department overruled Matter of Clarke v Annucci, 190 AD3d 1245, Third Dept 2021, which rejected the so-called catalyst theory and precluded recovery under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) when the sued agency voluntarily grants the sought relief after litigation has been started: The “catalyst theory” is now accepted as valid in the Third Department where, as in this case, the party “prevails in whole,” but not where a party has only “substantially prevailed:”

The text of the state EAJA, the legislative record, our collective judicial experience and common sense all lead us to conclude that the Legislature could have rationally determined that parties who receive complete relief from the State after the commencement of litigation have prevailed “in whole” even if the State folds and gives it to them. * * *

… [W]e hold that a party prevails in whole when the party obtains all of the relief sought in a lawsuit against the State — including when that relief is granted voluntarily by the State after the action is commenced — and is thus a prevailing party under the state EAJA as a matter of law (see CPLR 8602 [f]). To the extent Clarke is to the contrary, it should no longer be followed. * * *

… [A]lthough we no longer read the state EAJA to require every prevailing party to obtain judicially sanctioned relief, we do not otherwise address a party “who prevails . . . in substantial part” (CPLR 8602 [f]). Petitioner’s case does not require us to resolve whether the catalyst theory applies where a party has substantially, but not wholly, prevailed. We continue to impose an additional requirement on a substantially prevailing party to show a win against the State on the merits of one or more “issues” in litigation, and a corresponding win by the State on the merits of one or more “separate issues” (CPLR 8602 [f] …). Therefore, a party claiming to have prevailed in substantial part must still demonstrate that relief was obtained on the merits in an outcome that changes the legal relationship between the party and the State — for example, a judgment on the merits or a settlement agreement. Matter of Markey v Tietz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If a party starts litigation against the state and the state voluntarily grants the sought relief, the party is entitled to attorney’s fees under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

 

, , ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the breach of contract (commercial lease) cause of action against defendant limited liability companies which had purchased the assets of the original lessee (another limited liability company) should not have been dismissed. The majority concluded the complaint stated a cause of action under the theory that defendants constituted a “mere continuation” of the original lessee. The dissent argued the “mere continuation” theory does not apply where, as here, there are two purchasers of the original lessee’s assets:

… [W]e find that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract against [defendants] based on the “mere continuation” exception to the rule against successor liability. “Although no one factor is dispositive,” courts determining whether a successor corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business … . * * *

Neither the motion court nor defendants cite to any authority prohibiting application of mere continuation successor liability where more than one company has acquired the assets of the predecessor. We disagree with the dissent to the extent that it asserts that Schumacher (59 NY2d 239) stands for the proposition that the existence of more than one successor corporation necessarily bars application of the mere continuation doctrine. In Schumacher, there was only one successor … . Accordingly, it does not address the situation in the facts pleaded by plaintiff in this case. Avamer 57 Fee LLC v Hunter Boot USA LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04607, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: The purchasers of a business which constitute a “mere continuation” of the seller’s business can be liable under a contract originally entered by the seller.

 

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