You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

THE DATE BY WHICH AN OPTION TO RENEW A LEASE IS TO BE EXERCISED CAN BE WAIVED BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNTIMELY ELECTION TO RENEW; THE REQUEST FOR A NEW LEASE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL TERMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION TO RENEW (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant tenant had exercised its option to renew the lease. The court noted that the date by which an option to renew must be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the landlord:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that, to the extent that Supreme Court concluded that defendant could not have exercised the option to renew because the option lapsed after November 30, 2018, that finding was erroneous. Although an “optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option” … , the relevant case law establishes that the notice provision associated with the option was “solely for plaintiff’s benefit as the landlord and may be waived, even in the absence of a written waiver” … . Here, plaintiff’s assertion that he confirmed and accepted defendant’s untimely election constitutes such waiver.

… [W]here an option is exercised and all of the essential and material terms of the parties’ agreement are provided for in the original lease, the fact that a party contemplates “the subsequent execution of a more formal writing [that was] not done will not impair [the] effectiveness” of the election … . Nor would plaintiff’s inquiry as to whether defendant would like a future option to renew render defendant’s exercise of the option conditional … .

The core question is whether defendant exercised its option to renew, as a matter of law. Moore v Schuler-Haas Elec. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03739, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: The date by which an option to renew a leased is to be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the acceptance of an untimely election. The request for a new lease with the same material terms does not invalidate the election to renew.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BY LANDLORDS AGAINST POTENTIAL TENANTS BASED UPON SOURCE OF INCOME; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for a violation of the Executive Law prohibiting discrimination in renting an apartment based upon source of income. Although the issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the issue presented a question of law which could not have been avoided had it been raised below:

Executive Law § 296 (5) (a) (2) provides in relevant part that it “shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or any agent or employee thereof . . . [t]o discriminate against any person because of . . . lawful source of income . . . in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any such housing accommodation or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith.” Plaintiff alleged in its amended complaint that it sent two testers to defendants’ properties seeking to rent the properties. The testers asked defendants if they accepted security agreements, which are issued by the Erie County Department of Social Services to landlords in the amount of one month’s rent in lieu of a cash deposit. Defendants responded that they accepted those agreements, but that they also required tenants to put down a cash deposit of one-half of a month’s rent for the security deposit.

… The allegations in the amended complaint support the inference that, for a person whose lawful source of income is public assistance … , defendants imposed a different term or condition for the rental than for a person whose lawful source of income was not public assistance. In particular, for a person on public assistance, defendants required one-half’s month rent, in cash, as a security deposit in addition to the security agreements. Housing Opportunities Made Equal v DASA Props. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03607, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: The Executive Law prohibits landlords from discriminating against potential tenants by requiring a cash deposit in addition to security agreements issued by the county.

Practice Point: An issue not raised below will be considered on appeal if it presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if raised below.

 

,

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE FULLY EXECUTED LEASE WAS EVER DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT TENANT; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE TERMS OF THE LEASE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-landlord was not entitled to summary judgment based on the terms of the second amended lease because the landlord could not show that the defendant-tenant was ever provided with a fully executed lease:

… [A] leasehold estate cannot be conveyed without a legal delivery of the fully executed lease to the lessee … , and plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof to rebut [defendant’s] showing that he never received delivery of the executed second amendment during the lease period. Evidence of defendant’s continued occupancy and payment of rent after expiration of the first amendment to the lease in 2016 is equally consistent with a month-to-month tenancy giving rise to an obligation to pay use and occupancy, and therefore does not, without more, prove delivery of the second amendment. Walber 82 St. Assoc., LP v Fisher, 2023 NY Slip Op 02993, First Dept 6-6-23

Practice Point: A leasehold estate cannot be conveyed without legal delivery of the fully executed lease to the lessee.

 

, ,

IN THESE TWO CASES, INTRUDERS ENTERED AN APARTMENT BUILDING THROUGH EXTERIOR DOORS WHICH, ALLEGEDLY, WERE UNLOCKED AND MURDERED VICTIMS WHO WERE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED; THE FACT THAT THE VICTIMS WERE TARGETED WAS NOT AN “INTERVENING ACT” WHICH RELIEVED THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Second Department and reversing the First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the fact that the murder victims were targeted did not relieve the landlord, here the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), of liability for the alleged failure to provide exterior doors with functioning locks:

… [W]hen the issue of proximate cause involves an intervening act, “liability turns on whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” … . It is “[o]nly where ‘the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct,’ [that it] may possibly ‘break[ ] the causal nexus’ ” … . But “[a]n intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … .

Here, the risk created by the nonfunctioning door locks—that intruders would gain access to the building and harm residents—is exactly the “risk that came to fruition” … . It was not the trial court’s role, on summary judgment, to assess the fact-bound question of whether the intruders … would have persevered in their attacks had the doors been securely locked. This is not to say that the sophistication and planning of an attack is irrelevant to the factfinder’s determination of proximate cause, or even that it could never rise to such a degree that it would sever the proximate causal link as a matter of law … . But neither [scenario here] approaches that level. Scurry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 02752, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: The fact that the victims were specifically targeted by intruders who entered the apartment buildings through doors alleged to have been unlocked did not relieve the landlord of liability under an “intervening act” theory. The requirement that exterior doors be locked addresses the risk at issue in these cases.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant, 185th Operating, was not liable for a sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall. Although the NYC Administrative Code makes tenants responsible for removing ice and snow from sidewalks, it does not impose tort liability for a failure to do so. Here the lease explicitly stated the tenant is not responsible for clearing ice and snow:

Although the applicable statute requires tenants to clear snow and ice from the sidewalks around their premises, the statute does not impose tort liability for noncompliance (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-123[a] …). Furthermore, Administrative Code § 7-210(a), which requires property owners to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property, does not impose liability on 185 Operating, as 185 Operating is a tenant of the premises, not the owner. Not only did 185th Operating’s lease with defendant owner … specifically state that 185th Operating was not responsible for maintaining the sidewalks adjacent to the premises, but [the owner’s] lease with defendant Staples …, a tenant occupying the same building as 185th Operating, expressly made Staples responsible for clearing snow and ice from the sidewalk where the icy condition had occurred.

The record does not present any evidence that 185th Operating’s earlier voluntary snow removal created or exacerbated a hazardous condition that then caused plaintiff’s injury … . Cruz v Heights Broadway, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02612, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Here the lease specifically stated the defendant tenant was not responsible for removing ice and snow from the sidewalk. The NYC Administrative Code requires tenants to remove ice and snow but does not impose tort liability for the failure to do so. The code also requires owners to remove ice and snow. The tenant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

, ,

HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MADE THE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE CRACKED STEP WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The court noted that if, due to the provisions of the lease, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for the repair of a defect, the fact that the landlord had notice of the defect is irrelevant:

“An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it ‘(1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision'” … .Here, defendant established that it was an out of possession landlord with no contractual obligation to make repairs or maintain the restaurant premises. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the lease agreement, all non-structural repairs to the premises were to be made by the tenant restaurant at its sole cost and expense. Moreover, the cracked step at issue was not a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … .

In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s assertion that there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant had actual notice of the cracked step on which plaintiff fell is without merit. An out of possession landlord may not be held liable even if it had notice of the defective condition prior to the accident … . Padilla v Holrod Assoc. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02082, First Dept 4-25-23

Practice Point: By the terms of the lease, the out-of-possession landlord was only responsible for structural repairs. The cracked step in this slip and fall case was not a structural defect. The fact that the landlord was aware of the defect was irrelevant.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE RELIANCE UPON THE INFLATED RENTS DESCRIBED IN THE FILED REGISTRATION STATEMENTS; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined defendant landlord’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments should have been granted. The court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the “reliance” element of fraud:

The primary question on this appeal is whether plaintiffs, who allege that the predecessor in interest of defendant 75-25 153rd Street, LLC initially registered an unlawfully inflated “legal regulated rent” for each of their apartments in 2007, have sufficiently alleged, in this action commenced in 2020, the perpetration of “a fraudulent scheme to deregulate” so as to avoid the bar of the four-year lookback rule and to allow recalculation of the legal rent on the base date (in 2016), utilizing the default formula referenced in Regina [35 NY3d 332], as a basis for overcharge damages. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to allege such a fraudulent scheme because neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors in interest could have reasonably relied upon the inflated legal regulated rents on the registration statements. As the Court of Appeals recognized in Regina [35 NY3d 332], reasonable reliance is as much an element of fraud in this context as in others (see id. at 356 n 7 [“Fraud consists of evidence of a representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury”] [emphasis added, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]). As more fully explained below, the inflation of the legal regulated rents set forth on the publicly filed registration statements was evident from the registration statements themselves, negating the element of reliance as a matter of law. Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01940, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: In this action alleging the fraudulent deregulation of apartments, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate reliance upon the inflated rents described in the registration statements. Therefore the complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments should have been dismissed.

 

, , , , ,

THE ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY VALUE; THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION CANNOT BE CURED IN REPLY; FAILURE TO REGISTER AN APARTMENT WITH THE CITY DHCR AND INCREASING THE RENT DO NOT DEMONSTRATE A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme court, determined: (1) the summary judgment motion should have been supported by plaintiff’s affidavit, not the attorney’s affidavit; (2) papers submitted in reply cannot be used to remedy deficiencies in the original submission; and (3), to demonstrate a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment, it is not enough to show the landlord did not register the apartment with the NYC Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and increased the rent:

CPLR 3212(b) states, “A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit . . . The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts.” Plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit. While he submitted his attorney’s affirmation, “[s]uch an affirmation . . . is without evidentiary value” … . Although plaintiff submitted his complaint, it is not verified, so it cannot be used in lieu of an affidavit (see CPLR 105[u] …).

… [I]n Ampim v 160 E. 48th St. Owner II LLC (208 AD3d 1085 [1st Dept 2022]), [we] said, “an increase in rent and failure to register [an] apartment with . . . DHCR . . ., standing alone, are insufficient to establish a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment” … .

… Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an increase in rent, or that landlord misrepresented the legal regulated rent … .

Plaintiff did show an increase in rent through documents submitted in reply. However, a movant may not use reply papers “to remedy . . . basic deficiencies in [his] prima facie showing” … . Tribbs v 326-338 E 100th LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01950, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: The attorney affidavit submitted in support of the summary judgment motion was not based on first-hand knowledge and therefore had no evidentiary value.

Practice Point: Re: a summary judgment motion, deficiencies in the original submissions cannot be cured in reply.

Practice Point: Failure to register an apartment with the NYC DHCR coupled with raising the rent do not demonstrate a fraudulent scheme to deregulate.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in this sidewalk slip and fall case, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, determined a provision of the master lease violated General Obligations Law 5-321:

General Obligations Law § 5-321 states that “[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The Court of Appeals, in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (42 NY2d 153 [1977]) and Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412 [2006]), established an exception to General Obligations Law § 5-321. Parties to a lease agreement may execute a provision requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord from the landlord’s own negligence. However, the lease must also contain an insurance provision “allocating the risk of liability to third parties” because “[c]ourts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance … . Insurance procured by the tenant in satisfaction of the indemnity clause provides the injured plaintiff with adequate recourse for the damages suffered … .

… Article 13 of the master lease requires Regent [the landlord] to be indemnified for all claims “provided however that the same shall not arise from the willful acts of Landlord during the term of this Lease.” On its face, we find that this provision violates General Obligations Law § 5-321. Bessios v Regent Assoc., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01583, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A lease which requires the landlord to be indemnified for its own negligence violates General Obligations Law 5-321 unless the lease also requires the tenant to procure insurance which will compensate the injured party for the landlord’s negligence.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT LANDLORD ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULANT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE; THEREFORE THE DEFAULT FORMULA TO SET THE BASE DATE RENT PURSUANT TO THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE SHOULD NOT BE USED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the default formula for determining the plaintiffs-tenants’ legal regulated rent pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code should not be used because there was no evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate. Rather defendants’ deregulation was based upon a misinterpretation of the law:

Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal was decided after Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion (35 NY3d 332 [2020]). There, this Court made clear that, under the pre-Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 law applicable here, “review of rental history outside the four-year lookback period [i]s permitted only in the limited category of cases where the tenant produced evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate and, even then, solely to ascertain whether fraud occurred—not to furnish evidence for calculation of the base date rent or permit recovery for years of overcharges barred by the statute of limitations” … . In fraud cases, because the reliability of the base date rent has been tainted, “this Court sanctioned use of the default formula to set the base date rent” … . Regina also held that “deregulation of [ ] apartments during receipt of J-51 benefits was not based on a fraudulent misstatement of fact but on a misinterpretation of the law [and so] a finding of willfulness is generally not applicable to cases arising in the aftermath of Roberts [and] [b]ecause conduct cannot be fraudulent without being willful, it follows that the fraud exception to the lookback rule is generally inapplicable to Roberts overcharge claims” … .

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden on summary judgment. Defendants’ deregulation of the apartments was based on this same “misinterpretation of the law” involved in Regina and therefore that conduct did not constitute fraud … . Defendants’ subsequent re-registering of the apartments occurred after the four-year lookback period, and plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence that it somehow affected the reliability of the actual rent plaintiffs paid on the base date. Casey v Whitehouse Estates, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01351, CtApp 3-16-23

Practice Point: In order to use the default formula pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code, there must have been a fraudulent scheme to deregulate on the part of the landlord. Here there was no evidence of a fraudulent scheme as opposed to a misinterpretation of the law.

 

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy