You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

NYC LOFT BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED TENANTS’ WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOFT LAW CONVERSION APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO OBTAIN RENT REGULATION COVERAGE OUTSIDE THE LOFT LAW’S STATUTORY SCHEME (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the tenants’ request to withdraw the conversion application under the Loft Law should have been granted by the NYC Loft Board:

This article 78 proceeding stems from an application for the legal conversion of certain lofts in New York City from commercial use to residential use pursuant to Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (§ 283), commonly known as the Loft Law. Where owners register covered buildings and comply with the Loft Law’s requirements, the Loft Law will deem a building an “interim multiple dwelling (IMD)” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), which would allow the owner to collect rent from residential occupants, despite the lack of a residential certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law §§ 283, 285, 301). The Loft Law requires landlords to bring converted residences up to code and prevents them from charging tenants for improvements until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (Multiple Dwelling Law § 284(1)). The Loft Law is administered by the New York City Loft Board (Multiple Dwelling Law § 282). * * *

Here, the petitioner tenant claims, and the Loft Board does not dispute, that there is a separate and independent track for the tenants to obtain rent regulation coverage outside the Loft Law’s statutory scheme. It is undisputed that the four residential occupancies are legal under New York City Zoning applicable to the area where the subject building is located. While the Rent Stabilization Law usually requires buildings to have six or more residential units, adjacent buildings with common facilities, ownership, and management are treated as one integrated unit, thereby constituting a horizontal multiple dwelling for purposes of rent stabilization … . In this case, the subject building is a rear building that adjoins a front building that is already subject to rent stabilization. Given that the buildings share common ownership — a sprinkler system, a plumbing system, and their respective electric meters and mailboxes are at the same location — the rear building appears to be part of a horizontal multiple dwelling that would be subject to rent stabilization once the residential certificate of occupancy is procured by the owner. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 00368, First Dept 1-16-20

 

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT DID NOT PROVE IT GAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO RENEW THE LEASE, THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN EQUITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although plaintiff commercial tenant did not prove it provided timely notice of its option to renew the lease, the tenant was entitled to relief in equity:

Although the general rule is that a tenant that fails to exercise an option to renew within the time and in the manner provided in the lease is without remedy at law … , equity will intervene to relieve a commercial tenant’s failure to exercise an option to renew within the time and in the manner provided in the lease “where (1) such failure was the result of inadvertence,’ negligence’ or honest mistake’; (2) the nonrenewal would result in a forfeiture’ by the tenant; and (3) the landlord would not be prejudiced by the tenant’s failure to send, or its delay in sending, the renewal notice” … . Laundry Mgt. – N. 3rd St., Inc. v BFN Realty Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00265, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, ,

TENANT IN THE BUILDING ABUTTING A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL; RELEVANT LAW CONCISELY AND COMPLETELY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, a tenant in the building abutting the sidewalk, could not be held liable for a sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The Second Department concisely but completely laid out the law on the issues:

Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a), “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk” has a duty “to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . shall be liable for any injury to property or personal injury, including death, proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition” … . “As 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” … . “However, 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, the tenant may be liable to a third party” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged defect, make special use of the sidewalk, violate any applicable statute, or have a contractual duty to maintain the sidewalk where the accident occurred … . Leitch-Henry v Doe Fund, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00112, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE PRO SE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL RAISED A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant tenant raised a question whether the late fees assessed by the landlord constituted usurious interest. The 1st Department heard the appeal despite the pro se defendant’s failure to perfect the appeal from the correct judgment, noting that the issue is purely legal:

… [T]he court should have considered defendant’s argument that the late fees, which along with returned check fees, constitute additional rent under the lease, amount to unenforceable usurious interest rates (see Sandra’s Jewel Box v 401 Hotel, 273 AD2d 1, 3 [1st Dept 2000] [“the late charge provision of the lease . . . while not technically interest, is unreasonable and confiscatory in nature and therefore unenforceable”] … ). Although defendant raised this argument for the first time in reply, we consider it because the issue is determinative and is purely legal … .

Plaintiff defined additional rent as “primarily late fees,” and it appears that the late fee lease provision permitting a 5% charge on amounts due actually resulted in what would amount to a 60% interest rate or higher, depending on plaintiff’s accounting practices. Moreover, even with plaintiff’s voluntary reduction of the late fee to 2%, additional rent comprises nearly half the sum demanded for the relevant 27-month period. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the motion court for a determination whether the late fees were “unreasonable and grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual unpaid rent” … . JW 70th St. LLC v Simon, 2020 NY Slip Op 00042, First Dept 1-2-20

 

,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the exculpatory clauses in the lease which relieved the landlord from liability for the tenant’s lost profits caused by the landlord’s negligence is not void pursuant to General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-321. GOL 5-321 refers only to property damage, not lost profits:

The claim for lost profits, however, was properly dismissed. General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides:

“Every 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 exculpatory clauses in the lease relieving defendants of liability for lost profits resulting from their own negligence are not void under General Obligations Law § 5-321 because lost profits are distinct from property damage … . …

Moreover, paragraph 23 of the lease amendment specifically provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary . . . Tenant waives, to the full extent permitted by law, any claim for consequential or punitive damages in connection [with damage to Tenant’s property]”  … . In view of this unequivocal exculpatory clause stating that no other provision in the lease shall entitle the tenant to consequential damages, the claim for lost profits is barred … . Chaitman v Moezinia, 2019 NY Slip Op 09396, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s (Huntress’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant’s (Kingsbury’s) action for wrongful eviction (RPAPL 853) should not have been granted:

The sole contention raised by Huntress in support of his motion with respect to the first cross claim was that he could not be personally liable inasmuch as he was acting as an agent of a disclosed principal. We conclude that Huntress failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cross claim and, as a result, the burden never shifted to Kingsbury to raise a triable issue of fact … .

“It is well established that [a] corporate officer may be held personally liable for a tort of the corporation if he or she committed or participated in its commission, whether or not his or her acts are also by or for the corporation’ ” … . A cause of action under RPAPL 853 sounds in tort … . Here, Huntress failed to establish that he did not participate in the eviction of Kingsbury, and he therefore failed to establish as a matter of law that he cannot be held personally liable if the eviction violated RPAPL 853 … . Canandaigua Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Acquest S. Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 09130, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE ONE-STEP RISER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord (Steph-Leigh) was not responsible for the repair of a one-step riser inside a warehouse, which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

“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, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege the violation of a statute, Steph-Leigh demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly damaged step … . Although the lease obligated Steph-Leigh to make necessary structural repairs to the interior of the premises, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegedly cracked and eroded single-step riser was not a structural element of the warehouse for which Steph-Leigh was contractually responsible … . Michaele v Steph-Leigh Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08844, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum with no discussion of the facts, over a dissent, determined the landlord’s (NYC Housing Authority’s) motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case was properly granted. The dissenter argued the Housing Authority did not demonstrate the assailant was not an intruder:

… [T]he New York City Housing Authority met its initial burden of demonstrating that no material triable issues of fact exist through its showing that plaintiff’s assailant was likely not an intruder. In response, plaintiff failed to adduce any admissible evidence from which a jury could conclude, without engaging in speculation, that her assailant was an intruder and, concomitantly, whether defendant’s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of her injuries … . Laniox v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08448, CtApp 11-21-19

 

, ,

THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the settlement agreement between that landlord and tenants providing that the landlord would take steps to obtain a certificate of occupancy and convert the property into rent stabilized residences should not have been annulled in its entirety; (2) the tenants’ attempt, based on the settlement, to withdraw their applications for coverage of he property under the Loft Law was properly denied. The property in question was commercial property which included residences for which no certificate of occupancy had been issued:

The Loft Law is designed to integrate “uncertain and unregulated residential units, converted from commercial use, into the rent stabilization system in a manner which ensures compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law and various building codes” … . The Loft Law was created to regulate the conversion of industrial, manufacturing, and commercial space into residential space. It enables an owner to rent space in a building while the structure is undergoing conversion pursuant to building department, fire department, and other regulatory requirements necessary to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a residential building. The work necessary to legalize a building for residential use is subject to specifically prescribed time periods (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 284[1]), and the Loft Board is specifically charged with determining interim multiple dwelling status and other issues of coverage, including coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282).

Here, the Supreme Court should have confirmed the Loft Board’s determination rejecting the tenants’ proposed withdrawal of their coverage applications and remitting the coverage applications … for adjudication. Contrary to the tenants’ contentions, the Loft Board had jurisdiction over the coverage applications (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 282), and the coverage applications did not become moot upon the tenants’ proposed withdrawal with prejudice of the applications. Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York provides that the Loft Board may review settlement agreements and exercise discretion to reject a proposed settlement and remit matters for further investigation and adjudication (see NY City Loft Board Regulations [29 RCNY] § 1-06[j][5]). There is nothing in that rule that limits the Loft Board’s review of settlement agreements or its authority to re-open and remit a coverage application. Matter of Dom Ben Realty Corp. v New York City Loft Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08188, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

STACKED BOXES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED; LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; HOWEVER, LANDLORD ESTABLISHED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the landlord did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord in this slip and fall case. But the landlord did demonstrate it did not create of have notice of the stacked boxes which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The stacked boxes did not constitute an open and obvious condition as a matter of law:

The evidence submitted by the tenant in support of its motion, including, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony regarding the accident, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the stacked boxes constituted an open and obvious condition, and whether the stacked boxes constituted an inherently dangerous condition. The evidence likewise failed to establish, prima facie, that the tenant did not create or have notice of the condition. …

… [T]he landlord defendants’ submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords. The copy of the lease the landlord defendants submitted was illegible, and the deposition testimony …  failed to establish, prima facie, that the landlord defendants had relinquished control over the premises to such a degree as to extinguish their duty to maintain the premise … .

… [T]he landlord defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Robbins v 237 Ave. X, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08237, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

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