You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord was not required to insulate the pipe leading to the radiator because the pipe was part of the heating system (which would have been impeded by insulation). Therefore the personal injury action stemming from infant plaintiff’s contact with the hot pipe was properly dismissed:

​

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff slipped off the bed and fell against hot pipes that conveyed steam to the radiators in the apartment. The court properly concluded that defendant did not violate its common-law duty to plaintiffs in failing to insulate the hot pipes … . Plaintiffs argue that because the pipes were not the primary source of heat to the apartment, insulation would not have interfered with the functionality of the heating system … . However, even plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that the pipes were part of the heating system and supplied some heat to the room. P.R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 07955, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/HEATING SYSTEMS  (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))

,

LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this personal injury action. The property was leased to plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff’s employer was doing construction work in the yard outside the building. Plaintiff fell into a hole dug by his employer in the yard. The lease imposed repair responsibilities on the landlord for the building only, not the yard:

​

The subject lease provided that defendant “shall maintain and repair the public portions of the building, both interior and exterior [and that]. . .[t]enant shall, throughout the term of this lease, take good care of the demised premises. . .and at its sole cost and expense, make all non-structural repairs. . .when needed to preserve them in good working order and condition.” Here, testimony established that the accident did not occur in a public portion of the building, but rather in the backyard that was exclusively controlled by plaintiff’s employer, thereby not implicating an area that defendant had retained the responsibility to maintain … . Similarly, the evidence demonstrated that, in actual practice, defendant did nothing to show that it had the authority to maintain or repair the accident premises … .

Furthermore, although the lease states that defendant had the right to reenter the premises to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant violated a specific statutory safety provision, or that the hole in which he stepped was a structural defect … .

Plaintiff’s reference to an OSHA provision that was allegedly violated by defendant is unavailing, because defendant was not plaintiff’s employer … . Martinez v 3801 Equity Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07938, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged a portion of the ceiling of her apartment fell down, injuring her. She alleged a standard negligence theory (failure to keep the premises safe) and a cause of action under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The court noted that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was not available because plaintiff had been in the apartment for more than a year and therefore defendant did not have exclusive control over it. However there was evidence defendant had notice of a problem with the ceiling:

​

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition. In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that she or he neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence … .

​

Here, in support of her motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she had previously complained to the building superintendent, Jose Martinez, that the ceiling was damaged and water-stained, and that she feared it might fall on her. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant had advised her to inform Martinez of any complaints about her apartment. Under the circumstances, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she had no notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Correa v Matsias, 2017 NY Slip Op 06520, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (LANDLORD-TENANT, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined petitioner’s rent subsidy benefits under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program should not have been terminated. The termination was based upon the presence of petitioner’s former intimate partner, McGill, in the home. Petitioner demonstrated that McGill, who was abusive and whose presence was unwanted, was staying in the home without her permission. Termination of the rent subsidy benefits was deemed to violate the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

​

After an administrative hearing, the determination to terminate [petitioner’s] benefits was confirmed based upon the finding that she was obligated, but failed, to request permission to add … McGill as an occupant to her subsidized apartment. … [T]he petitioner was entitled to the housing protections of the Violence Against Women Act … based upon uncontested hearing evidence establishing that she was subjected to an escalating pattern of stalking and abusive behavior and domestic violence by McGill, … whose course of abusive and violent conduct against her included his unwanted presence in her apartment. … [W]e conclude that [petitioner] was entitled to the housing protections of the VAWA, which prohibited her termination from the program on this ground … . Matter of Johnson v Palumbo, 2017 NY Slip Op 06534, 2nd Dept 9-20-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, RENT SUBSIDY, PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/RENT SUBSIDY (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))/SECTION 8  (PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant landlord had breached its duty to keep plaintiff’s apartment reasonably safe. Plaintiff was injured in a fire in his apartment which was determined to have started in electrical wiring. Plaintiff had complained over the years about the inadequacy of the number of electrical outlets and the condition of the outlets. Plaintiff used extension cords and a power strip compensate for the allegedly inadequate outlets. The issue is whether the landlord’s failure to upgrade the 1930’s electrical system in the apartment breached a duty owed plaintiff:

​

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed in plaintiff’s apartment that it failed to remedy … . Specifically, plaintiff’s expert raised factual issues as to whether the building’s 1930s electrical system constituted a dangerous condition and whether defendant was on notice of same. Although the expert, a professional engineer, did not personally inspect the premises, he based his opinion that the fire was caused by overloaded electrical wires on specific factual evidence in the record and his knowledge of consumers’ changed needs since the 1930s because of the invention and development of power-hungry personal appliances that simply require more electrical power … . Daly v 9 E. 36th LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06404, First Dept 9-5-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))/ELECTRICAL WIRING (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))

,

LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged they were injured during a robbery and the landlord failed to provide sufficient protection in the form of a lock on an interior door through which the robbers gained entry. The Second Department held the landlord had demonstrated the break-in was not foreseeable because there had been no other similar break-ins:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . “To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” …  ” Without evidentiary proof of notice of prior criminal activity, the owner’s duty reasonably to protect those using the premises from such activity never arises”‘… .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they lacked notice of the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject premises … . Golub v Louris, 2017 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 8-30-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (LANDLORD-TENANT, LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord’s (NYC Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff was shot by an unknown assailant in the hallway of his apartment building. Plaintiff alleged the assailant gained access to the building by virtue of a broken lock:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person”… . Recovery against a landlord for an assault committed by a third party requires a showing that the landlord’s negligent failure to provide adequate security was a proximate cause of the injury … . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, NYCHA met its prima facie burden by submitting evidence that the rear door lock was operable and not broken on the day of the incident, and, in any event, by demonstrating that the assailant’s identity remains unknown and that it could not be established that the assailant was an intruder … . In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” … . Martinez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06263, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a mistaken start-date in the lease was a sufficient ground for rescission:

Rescission “rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself [or herself] unjustly at the expense of another” … , and is invoked “where the parties can be substantially restored to their status quo ante positions” … . The remedy of rescission may be granted where, as here, a mistake existed at the time the contract was entered into if “the mistake is so material that . . . it goes to the foundation of the agreement”… .

Here, the landlord’s principal admitted at trial that a mistake was made regarding the commencement date of the parties’ lease. Contrary to the landlord’s contention, however, the mistake as to the commencement date related to a material term of the lease … , and substantially defeated the purpose of the lease. K.A.M.M. Group, LLC v 161 Lafayette Realty, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06260, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE, MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))/LEASE (MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))/RESCISSION (LEASE, MISTAKEN COMMENCEMENT DATE IN A LEASE IS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESCISSION (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff, a student living in defendant’s on-campus housing, was injured when a globe from an overhead light fell on her. The defendant college demonstrated it did not created the dangerous condition and did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition:

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant, Long Island University, and resided at its on-campus housing facility in Brooklyn. During the evening of November 5, 2010, a glass globe fell from a ceiling lighting fixture in the plaintiff’s room onto her head. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries or have actual or constructive notice of it … . Williamson v Long Is. Univ., 2017 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT))

BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in the action by a real estate broker seeking a commission based upon a lease should have been granted. The broker had negotiated the original lease in 2001 and was paid a commission. The question was whether the second lease in 2011 was a renewal of the original lease or a new lease, for which no commission was due. The Fourth Department held the 2011 lease was a new lease:

… [W]e agree with defendants that they met their burden on their motion by establishing that the 2011 lease was a new lease, rather than a renewal of the 2001 lease. In support of their motion, defendants submitted evidence establishing that, under the 2011 lease, HealthNow was leasing only part of the subject building, rather than the whole building as called for under the 2001 lease. In addition, the 2011 lease called for First Columbia [landlord] to make structural changes to the building to accommodate HealthNow’s [tenant’s] changing needs, and to install a backup generator at a cost in excess of $300,000. Furthermore, the rent was higher in the 2011 lease, it was not calculated in accordance with the terms for a renewal as provided in the 2001 lease, and the 2011 lease was for a term of seven years, whereas the 2001 lease called for a renewal term of five years. Finally, defendants established that the 2011 lease was not the result of any brokerage services performed by plaintiff. Baumann Realtors, Inc. v First Columbia Century-30, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05546, 4th Dept 7-7-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/LEASES (BROKER’S COMMISSIONS, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, COMMISSIONS, LEASES, BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)/COMMISSIONS (REAL ESTATE BROKERS, LEASES, , BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011 LEASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, 2011 LEASE WAS DEEMED A NEW LEASE, NOT A RENEWAL OF THE 2001 LEASE 4TH DEPT)

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