You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

A LEASE GUARANTY WHICH ALLOWS AMENDMENTS TO THE LEASE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE GUARANTORS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the guarantors of a lease, Cipolla and Mucci, were liable under the guaranty, even though amendments to the lease could be made without notice to the guarantors:

The plaintiff … submitted a guaranty signed by … Cipolla and Mucci … which provided that the undersigned would become guarantors of the prompt and faithful payment and performance of Corbel under the lease, and that no modifications or amendments to the lease would relieve the guarantors’ obligations … . …

The guaranty provided … that notice to or consent by the guarantors was not required for amendments respecting the lease. … “A guarantor is not relieved of his [or her] obligations where, as here, the written guarant[y] allows for changes in the terms of the guarant[y] and expressly waives notice to the guarantor of these changes” … . 2402 E. 69th St., LLC v Corbel Installations, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02996, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this dispute over a lease. Defendant store leased space in plaintiff mall. The lease provided the store could terminate the lease before the end of the term if its gross sales were below a threshold. The store sought to terminate the lease on that ground, but the mall alleged the store’s gross sales did not fall below the threshold. The lease included a liquidated damages provision. The majority concluded the liquidated damages provision provided a remedy at law, the loss of goodwill was not applicable and the balance of the equities favored the store, not the mall. So the preliminary injunction should not have been granted:

… [T]he lease contains a liquidated damages provision that entitles plaintiff to certain money damages if defendants prematurely vacate the premises and cease operations. The lease also contains an integration clause stating that the lease is “the entire and only agreement between the parties.” Thus, because the lease specifically provides that plaintiff is entitled to certain money damages in the event that defendants vacate the premises in breach of the agreement—the very injury that serves as the predicate for plaintiff’s action—we conclude that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and, moreover, that plaintiff has not suffered irreparable harm because the liquidated damages clause was intended as the sole remedy for such a breach … .

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that plaintiff established a likelihood of irreparable injury from the loss of goodwill that would occur if defendants were to cease operations by prematurely terminating the lease. The “loss of goodwill and damage to customer relationships, unlike the loss of specific sales, is not easily quantified or remedied by money damages” … and may warrant a finding of irreparable injury in cases such as those involving unfair competition tort claims … , the proposed demolition or alteration of the premises … , or the issuance of a Yellowstone injunction, in which it is a tenant, not the landlord, who seeks to enjoin the termination of a lease … . No such scenario is implicated here and, moreover, as already noted, the specific injury complained of by plaintiff was accounted for by the terms of the lease agreement. …

… [W]we conclude that the harm defendants will suffer if forced to keep their 6,000-square-foot store open against their will is greater than the injury plaintiff will suffer from the loss of one tenant in the mall, especially because plaintiff may still recoup its loss via the liquidated damages provision. Eastview Mall, LLC v Grace Holmes, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02447, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

,

NOTWITHSTANDING THE TENANT’S LEASE-OBLIGATION TO KEEP THE SIDEWALK FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, THE LANDLORD HAD THE NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO KEEP A RAMP LEADING TO THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of the property leased by a restaurant had a nondelegable duty to keep a metal ramp leading from the restaurant to the sidewalk (a special use of the sidewalk) in a safe condition, notwithstanding the restaurant’s lease-obligation to remove ice and snow from the sidewalk. Plaintiff, a restaurant employee, slipped and fell on snow and ice on the ramp:

Plaintiff, an employee of the restaurant owned by third-party defendant, slipped and fell on snow and ice on a metal ramp leading from the side door of the restaurant to the sidewalk. Third-party defendant leases the ground floor and basement space from defendant landowner. The evidence shows that the ramp was erected over the public sidewalk alongside defendant’s building, and is not included in the diagram of the leased space. Further, the director of leasing for defendant’s property manager testified that the ramp was built for use by people with disabilities.

Notwithstanding any lease provisions obligating the restaurant to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk, defendant, as owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, had a nondelegable duty to keep the sidewalk, and any special uses made of the sidewalk, in a safe condition, including the removal of snow and ice … . Dembele v 373-381 Pas Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02256, First Dept 4-9-20

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE WHICH FORMED ON THE STEP LEADING TO HER APARTMENT, DESPITE IT BEING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant out-of-possession landlord is liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on ice on a step leading to her apartment, despite it being plaintiff’s responsibility to remove ice and snow from the area. Plaintiff alleged the ice formed because of a leak in the porch roof:

… [P]laintiff contends that the condition that led to the formation of the ice patch was present and ascertainable for at least several days. …

… “[A] landlord has a duty to use ordinary care to keep those areas which are reserved and intended for the common use of the tenants and owner of the building and subject to the landlord’s control, i.e., the common areas, in a reasonably safe and suitable condition” … .

The roof here was not accessible or available for use by the tenants … , but the record indicates that the exterior of the building may have been within defendants’ control. Since purchasing the building in 1994, defendants had replaced the roof, replaced the gutter system along at least one side of the building and recoated part of the roof with tar. Defendant Timothy J. Charest, who was responsible for managing the property, testified that the gutter system was on the building when defendants purchased the property, but also testified that “if there were problems with a gutter” on the side of the building containing the apartment entrances, “there were repairs made,” though he could not remember when any such repairs had been made. Charest testified that he inspected the property approximately weekly, as well as after every storm. He did not keep records of his inspections but would do them on a weekday; plaintiff’s accident occurred on a Friday evening. Neither defendant could specifically identify when he had last inspected the property. Harkins v Tuma, 2020 NY Slip Op 02145, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

, , ,

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENT-OVERCHARGE SUIT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a partial dissent, determined the General Business Law 349 cause of action alleging deceptive business practices in the context of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) rent-overcharge suit was properly dismissed:

… General Business Law … , section 349 prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” … . We have held that this statute “cannot fairly be understood to mean that everyone who acts unlawfully, and does not admit the transgression, is being deceptive'” within the meaning of section 349 … . For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that a claim may lie under General Business Law § 349 based upon a landlord’s alleged misrepresentation to the public that an apartment was exempt from rent regulation following deregulation in violation of the Rent Stabilization Law. Here, however, plaintiffs alleged only that defendants failed to admit that they violated the Rent Stabilization Law in deregulating plaintiffs’ apartments—three of which were, in fact, never deregulated—rather than any affirmative conduct that would tend to deceive consumers. Inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to allege more than “bare legal conclusions” … regarding the existence of consumer-oriented, deceptive acts … , their General Business Law claim was properly dismissed. Collazo v Netherland Prop. Assets LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02128, CtApp 4-2-20

 

,

THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGE ACTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) COMMENCED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN ROBERTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) did not apply retroactively to extend the look back period for rent overcharge actions from four to six years, and did not alter the overcharge calculation methodology for pre-Roberts actions. The opinion and the dissent are too comprehensive and detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]hese four appeals … present a common issue under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL): what is the proper method for calculating the recoverable rent overcharge for New York City apartments that were improperly removed from rent stabilization during receipt of J-51 benefits prior to our 2009 decision in Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13 NY3d 270 [2009]). …

… [T]he HSTPA includes amendments that, among other things, extend the statute of limitations [and] alter the method for determining legal regulated rent for overcharge purposes and substantially expand the nature and scope of owner liability in rent overcharge cases … . The tenants in these cases urge us to apply the new overcharge calculation provisions to these appeals that were pending at the time of the HSTPA’s enactment, some of which seek recovery of overcharges incurred more than a decade before the new legislation. * * *

We … decline to create a new exception to the lookback rule and instead clarify that, under pre-HSTPA law, the four-year lookback rule and standard method of calculating legal regulated rent govern in Roberts overcharge cases, absent fraud. * * *

We conclude that the overcharge calculation amendments [enacted by the HSTPA] cannot be applied retroactively to overcharges that occurred prior to their enactment. Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2020 NY Slip Op 02127, CtApp 4-2-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM A FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Markou’s) motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was troubleshooting a problem with lighting when his ladder slid sideways. He jumped off the ladder and landed on his feet to avoid hitting his head on the ground. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case that he was engaged in a protected activity (repair rather than routine maintenance) and the ladder did not provide adequate protection:

… [W]e find that plaintiffs established that Markou was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), in that he was attempting to repair the overhead lighting system in the cold storage area of defendant’s premises … . …  Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, the court correctly concluded that plaintiffs, through the deposition testimony and sworn affidavit of their expert, sustained their prima facie burden of showing that the ladder was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to Markou (Labor Law § 240 [1]), causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Markou v Sano-Rubin Constr. Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant property owner did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. And defendants failed to eliminate questions of fact re: several elements of a slip and fall action:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had a duty to maintain in a reasonably safe condition the area of the parking lot where the plaintiff allegedly slipped … . They further failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they, or anyone on their behalf, caused, created, or exacerbated the ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … , and whether they lacked constructive notice of the alleged ice condition … . Pinck-Jafri v Marsh Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02082, Second Dept 3-25-30

 

,

LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a letter agreement regarding a lease was not an enforceable contract but rather was an agreement to agree:

In a document dated June 27, 2012 (hereinafter the 2012 letter agreement), the parties “consolidate[d] all existing letter agreements to the same expiration date” of February 28, 2015. The 2012 letter agreement also stated that the terms of the lease were “extended to now terminate on Feb. 28, 2030,” with “terms to be determined at the expiration of this initial lease consolidation period.” The 2012 letter agreement further stated that any annual percentage increase in rent will not be less than five percent and will not exceed eight percent. …

A “mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” … . “This is especially true of the amount to be paid for the sale or lease of real property” … . An agreement is not enforceable as a lease unless all of the essential terms are agreed upon, and if “any of these essential terms are missing and are not otherwise discernible by objective means, a lease has not been created” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a copy of the 2012 letter agreement, which demonstrated that the renewal provision was an unenforceable agreement to agree … . Reis v J.B. Kaufman Realty Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01657, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

, ,

THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS A RECURRENT DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT AS A WITNESS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE LATE NOTIFICATION; THE DIRECTED VERDICT WAS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the directed verdict, determined the proof demonstrated water leaking from the ceiling onto the floor was a recurrent dangerous condition which was not addressed by the landlord. The First Department also held that a witness for the plaintiff, who was defendant’s employee at the time of the accident, should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff’s trial evidence established prima facie that defendant had constructive notice of the water on the floor of the lobby of its building on which plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … . Plaintiff testified that at least four times before his accident, every few months, he observed water leaking from the ceiling onto the floor below in the area where he fell. His former girlfriend, with whom he lived in the building, testified that before the date of the accident “there were leaks and then afterward it was leaking again.” This testimony established that “an ongoing and recurrent dangerous condition existed in the area of the accident that was routinely left unaddressed by the landlord” … . Issues of credibility were for the jury.

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of Henry Soto, defendant’s building superintendent at the time of the accident, on the ground that it was prejudicial to defendant. Defendant could not have been prejudiced or surprised by plaintiff’s disclosure of Soto as a witness on the eve of trial, since Soto was defendant’s employee at the time of the accident … . Monzac v 1141 Elder Towers LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01243, First Dept 2-20-20

 

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