You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined 7-Eleven. the lessee of the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff allegedly fell, could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of the sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) imposes a duty upon “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “[A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty” … . Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party” … . Only “where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, [may] the tenant . . . be liable to a third party” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that 7-Eleven had any duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting the property it leased. Brady v 2247 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Under the NYC Administrative Code, the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk is not liable for a slip and fall caused by the condition of the sidewalk if the lessee did not create the condition and did not agree to maintain the sidewalk.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

, ,

LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TENANT ABANDONED THE LEASED PREMISES AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FOR THE PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER TENANT WAS LOCKED OUT; TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED IN THE LEASED PREMISES AFTER THE LOCKOUT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the plaintiffs’ verdict in this landlord-tenant dispute, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendants had abandoned the leased premises, a restaurant. Therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to recover rent after defendants were locked out by the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs did not submit sufficient proof of the alleged rent arrears (prior to the lockout). Defendants were entitled to recover on their unjust enrichment counterclaim for the value of the personal property which remained in the restaurant after the lockout:

As relating to commercial premises, “a landlord may avail himself or herself of a lease provision permitting reentry upon breach of conditions as long as he or she reenters peaceably” … . Certain evidence indicating abandonment may include failure to pay bills and rent, surrender of keys and physical relocation of business or personal items previously kept at the subject property … . Contrary conduct found not to demonstrate an intent to abandon a premises includes conduct such as leaving commercial equipment on the premises, paying the utilities, paying lump sum arrears, negotiating the sale of the business that included the leasehold and threatening to call the police on a landlord over a lockout … .

At trial, plaintiffs offered limited evidence of abandonment, namely, that plaintiff Martin P. Patton drove by the restaurant several times in May 2018 or June 2018 and observed it was closed and that defendants were behind on rent, although Patton was not exactly sure what days or what times he drove by or the total amount of rent arrears.  In contrast, Chen [the tenant] testified that, although business was declining, he continued to pay the rent and began to contact potential buyers to take over the restaurant and lease. According to Chen, the restaurant operated the day before the lockout and, when he returned the next day to find the locks changed, he called plaintiffs, who did not respond to him, and then he called the police, who generated an incident report. Defendants entered into evidence several photographs of the premises depicting equipment, furniture, powered-on televisions, liquor bottles on display at the bar and other chattel owned by defendants … . Patton v Modern Asian, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05192, Third Dept 9-15-22

Practice Point: Here the landlord was unable to prove at trial that the tenant had abandoned the leased premises. The landlord was not entitled to rent for the period before and after the tenant was locked out. The tenant was entitled to recover the value of the personal property remaining on the leased premises after the lockout.

 

,

THE CASUALTY CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT APPLY TO EXCUSE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S NONPAYMENT OF RENT DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC; THE FORCE MAJEURE, FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINES ALSO DID NOT APPLY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the casualty clause in the lease did not excuse defendant’s failure to pay rent during the COVID pandemic, (2) the force majeure doctrine did not apply, (3) and the frustration-of-purpose and unclean-hands doctrines did not apply:

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendant was not entitled to a rent abatement under the section of the lease providing that defendant was “not required to pay [r]ent when the [r]ental [s]pace [was] unusable” as a result of “damage” caused by a “fire or other casualty.” “That [section] of the lease refers to singular incidents causing physical damage to the premises and does not contemplate loss of use due to a pandemic or resulting government lockdown” … . * * *

… [T]he lease “contain[s] no force majeure provision, much less one specifying the occurrence that defendant would now have treated as a force majeure, and, accordingly, there is no basis for a force majeure defense” … . * * *

… “[T]he doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply as a matter of law where, as here, the tenant was not ‘completely deprived of the benefit of its bargain’ ” … .

… [T]here is no triable issue of fact on its unclean hands defense because, even if defendant had made genuine attempts to procure another tenant, plaintiff was under no contractual obligation to seek or approve a sublease with a third party for the relatively short period remaining on the commercial lease, and there is nothing immoral or unconscionable about plaintiff’s decision to seek the unpaid rent that defendant was contractually obligated to pay … . Arista Dev., LLC v Clearmind Holdings, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04451, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: The casualty clause in the lease applied only to singular events, not to the COVID pandemic. Defendant’s nonpayment of rent during the COVID pandemic was not excused by the terms of the lease.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CRIME, I.E., THE SHOOTING OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DOOR SECURITY WAS DEFICIENT AND THEREFORE WAS A CONCURRENT FACTOR IN THE SHOOTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants (the building owner, the building manager, and the security company) were not entitled to summary judgment in this wrongful death case stemming from a shooting in the building. Although the specific crime, i.e., the shooting of plaintiff’s decedent, may not have been foreseeable by the defendants, the relevant question was whether the building’s door security was deficient and was therefore a concurrent factor in shooting:

… [U]nder this Department’s jurisprudence, “[t]he test in determining summary judgment motions involving negligent door security should . . . not focus on whether the crime committed within the building was ‘targeted’ or ‘random,’ but whether or not, and to what extent, an alleged negligently maintained building entrance was a concurrent contributory factor in the happening of the criminal occurrence” … .

… [W]hile the precise nature and manner of [the shooter’s] crime could not necessarily have been anticipated, the alleged longstanding inoperability of the front door intercom system, involving a front door that was unlocked remotely from an off-premises security booth, along with the alleged failure of the security officers to properly screen visitors, and the chronic problem of piggy-backing, “made it foreseeable that some form of criminal conduct could occur to the detriment of one or more of the residents therein, at some point in time” … . In examining whether there are triable issues of fact as to issues of foreseeability and proximate cause requiring a trial, “a jury could conceivably conclude” that the alleged condition of the front door security equipment that included the inoperable intercom system, along with the failure of the security officers to engage in proper screening of visitors, would result in the improper piggy-back “entry of intruders into the [subject apartment] building for the commission of criminal activities against known or unknown specific tenants” … . Carmona v Sea Park E., L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 04149, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Point: In the Second Department, a landlord can be liable for a crime committed in the landlord’s building if the door security system was deficient and was therefore a concurrent factor in the happening of the crime. The plaintiff need not demonstrate the specific crime, here the shooting of plaintiff’s decedent, could have been foreseen by the landlord.

 

, ,

THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE WITH APARTMENT OWNERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS BY THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES (DHS) DID NOT CREATE “ILLUSORY TENANCIES” SUCH THAT THE PREVIOUSLY HOMELESS TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO VACANCY LEASES WHEN THE DHS CONTRACTS WERE TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the previously homeless appellants who had been placed in apartments did not demonstrate the arrangement constituted an “illusory tenancy” such that the appellants were entitled to vacancy leases. The owners of the apartments were entitled to possession after their contracts with the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS] were terminated:

… “[A]n illusory tenancy is defined generally as a residential leasehold created in a person who does not occupy the premises for his or her own residential use and subleases it for profit, not because of necessity or other legally cognizable reason”… . An illusory tenancy scheme exists, for example, where the “prime tenant” rents a rent-stabilized apartment, which it never intends to occupy, and then subleases it for an amount in excess of the legal rent so as to make a profit … . * * *

The leases in the present case did not lack a legitimate purpose. The subject premises were leased to, and by, both CAMBA and We Always for the “legally cognizable reason” of providing transitional housing in accordance with the terms of the Cluster Transitional Residence Program run by the City …  The leases entered into by CAMBA and We Always both specified that the agreement was entered into “for the sole purpose of providing transitional housing and services in connection with the DHS Agreement,” and the leases expired by their terms upon termination of the DHS [NYC Department of Homeless Services] Agreement (if not terminated earlier). * * *

… [T]he owners demonstrated, prima facie, that the appellants were not entitled to vacancy leases and related relief because illusory tenancies were not created to deprive them of the benefits of rent stabilization. Sapp v Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184, Second Dept 6-29-22

Practice Points: The previously homeless tenants were not entitled to vacancy leases when the relevant contracts with the NYC Department of Homeless Services [DHS} were terminated. The tenants argued the contractual arrangements between the apartment owners and DHS created “illusory tenancies.” An “illusory tenancy” is created, for example, when a party leases a rent-stabilized apartment for the sole purpose of subletting it for a profit. Here the leases served a legitimate purpose, the provision of transitional housing.

 

, , , ,

A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER OF PLAINTIFF’S BOARD) WAS NOT VOTED ON BY A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS AND WAS THEREFORE VOIDABLE UNDER BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 713(B); DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARAY DUTY TO THE CORPORATION BY SUBLETTING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR A MUCH HIGHER RENT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff cooperative apartment corporation (HDFC) demonstrated defendants (one of whom was a member of plaintiff’s board) had entered a lease with plaintiff which was not voted upon by a majority of disinterested directors and was therefore voidable under Business Corporation Law 713(b). In addition plaintiff demonstrated defendants had breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation:

Plaintiff, a low-income cooperative apartment corporation (HDFC), established prima facie that the lease between plaintiff and defendants Thomas Green and A Cup of Harlem was not voted on by a majority of disinterested directors and is therefore voidable under Business Corporation Law § 713(b). A Cup of Harlem is a partnership between Thomas Green and Siwana Green, who are married. Siwana Green is a shareholder in the HDFC and a former officer and member of plaintiff’s board of directors. By lease dated April 1, 2004, while Siwana Green was one of three members of the board, plaintiff leased one of the two commercial spaces in the building to Thomas Green and A Cup of Harlem for a 99-year term, with a monthly rent of $700 for the entirety of the term and an option to extend the lease for a 10-year term at a rate of $800 per month. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted a former board member’s affidavit that he was elected to a one-year term in February 2004, that he only learned of the lease in 2018, when Siwana Green was removed from the board, and that he never would have approved a lease with such “outlandish” terms. …

The record demonstrates that Siwana Green breached her fiduciary duty to plaintiff by diverting a corporate opportunity without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and admittedly receiving more than $200,000 profit from the sublessee to whom, in March 11, 2009, Thomas Green sublet the leased premises at a monthly rent of $2,500 for a ten-year term, which was then renewed for a monthly rent of $2,800. 67-69 St. Nicholas Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v Green, 2022 NY Slip Op 04087, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here a low-rent lease between plaintiff corporation and defendants (one of whom was a member of plaintiff’s board) was voidable because the lease was not approved by a majority of disinterested directors. Defendants sublet the leased premises for a much higher rent without plaintiff corporation’s knowledge and thereby breached their fiduciary duty to the corporation.

 

,

THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff retail store (GAP) was not entitled to a termination of its lease by operation of law based upon the New York governor’s COVID shutdown order and subsequent reopening restrictions. Plaintiff relied on the doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility, neither of which was deemed applicable:

Plaintiffs admittedly were allowed to provide curbside and in-store pickup on June 8, 2020, and to reopen at half capacity, with masking and social distancing, on June 22, 2020. Moreover, they represent that they were allowed to reopen fully from June 2021, albeit with the mask requirements reimposed during the winter months. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, “frustration of purpose is not implicated by temporary governmental restrictions on in-person operations” … . …

We have already rejected plaintiff Gap’s contention that Executive Order No. 202.8 “rendered it objectively impossible to perform its operations as a retail store” where, as here, Gap filed its complaint after reopening was allowed (Gap, Inc. v 170 Broadway Retail Owner, LLC, 195 AD3d at 577). In addition, even if the reopening restrictions made plaintiffs’ ability to provide a flagship store experience more difficult, the pandemic did not render their performance impossible, as “the leased premises were not destroyed” … . Gap, Inc. v 44-45 Broadway Leasing Co. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03980, First Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: The COVID executive orders requiring GAP to shutdown its retail store and then imposed restrictions on reopening did not terminate GAP’s lease as a matter of law. The contract-law doctrines of frustration of purpose and impossibility did not apply.

 

, ,

THE TENANT (A NET LESSEE), WHICH WAS OBLIGATED BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, CAN CHALLENGE A PROPERTY-TAX ASSESSMENT BY FILING A GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 524 (3); THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD RULED ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a tenant who is obligated to pay property taxes can properly file a grievance contesting a property-tax assessment:

RPTL 524 (3) presents an ambiguity. The clause “person whose property is assessed” is not defined in the RPTL, and it lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation … . * * *

… [W]e … hold that a grievance complaint filed with the assessor or board of assessment review at the administrative level by a net lessee who is contractually obligated to pay real estate taxes on the subject property satisfies RPTL 524 (3). Matter of DCH Auto v Town of Mamaroneck, 2022 NY Slip Op 03929, CtApp 6-16-22

Practice Point: Clearing up an ambiguity in Real Property Tax Law RPTL section 524, the Court of Appeals held that a tenant (a net lessee), which is obligated by the terms of the lease to pay the property taxes, can file a grievance challenging the property-tax assessment. The Appellate Division had held only the property owner could challenge an assessment.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the $96,000 transferred from an attorney’s IOLA account to defendant landlord was an “identifiable fund” which was a proper subject of this conversion action. The fund was for two months rent and a security deposit on a lease. But the lease was never signed. By keeping the $96,000 defendant had converted the “identified fund.” One of the points in the opinion was that the transfer of funds to an attorney’s IOLA account does not necessarily render the funds incapable of being “identified:”

… [W]e now clarify that our prior decision in SH575 Holdings [195 AD3d 429], which found that funds were not specifically identifiable by virtue of being transferred into the IOLA account of an attorney involved in a Ponzi scheme, should not be read to preclude a cause of action for conversion when funds at issue have been commingled to any extent. Here, notwithstanding the funds’ transmission through plaintiffs’ attorney’s IOLA account, the funds’ temporary presence in that account did not constitute commingling under any measure pertinent to this cause of action. While the funds were in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ IOLA account, they remained plaintiffs’ funds. Consequently, this conclusion is not at odds with this Court’s holding in SH575 Holdings. Family Health Mgt., LLC v Rohan Devs., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03796, First Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ security deposit and two-months rent amounting to $96,000 were transferred to defendant landlord from an attorney’s IOLA account. However the lease was never signed and defendant did not return the money. Despite the fact that the money was deposited in the IOLA account, it remained an “identifiable fund” and was therefore a proper subject for this conversion action.

 

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