354 EAST 66TH STREET REALTY CORP., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. MICHAEL CURRY AND MRS. MICHAEL, CURRY, res-ap

11-262/263. 354 EAST 66TH STREET REALTY CORP., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. MICHAEL CURRY AND MRS. MICHAEL, CURRY, res-ap — Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 6, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

11-262/263. 354 EAST 66TH STREET REALTY CORP., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. MICHAEL CURRY AND MRS. MICHAEL, CURRY, res-ap — Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 6, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Having prevailed on his succession defense in the within October 2008 licensee holdover proceeding, the first-named respondent is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the initial stabilized lease agreement and the reciprocal provisions of Real Property Law §234. The relevant attorneys’ fee clause, found in paragraph 7 of the 1972 lease agreement between the predecessor building owner and the record tenant (respondent’s mother), was expressly made applicable, together with the remaining lease provisions, to successors-in-interest of the original signatories to the lease. The provisions of paragraph 7 authorize landlord, in the event of a lease default by tenant, to re-enter the demised premises “with or without the means of summary proceedings,” relet the premises, and “pay to itself the expense and cost of retaking [and] repossessing,” including reasonable attorney fees, with tenant agreeing to pay and “remain[ing] liable for any such deficiency.” While judicial interpretation of similarly worded lease provisions has a long and variegated history (see Casamento v. Juaregui, 88 AD3d 345, 356-361 [2011]), the law now appears settled that the type of lease clause here at issue is sufficiently broad “to trigger the implied covenant in the tenant’s favor pursuant to [Real Property Law §] 234″ (id. at 362; see Katz v. Jagger, 98 AD3d 921, 921-922 [2012]). Applying the valid attorneys’ fee provision in favor of respondent, a successor tenant (see 245 Realty Assocs. v. Sussis, 243 AD2d 29 [1998]), we sustain the grant of his motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in the successful defense of the within petition.

354 EAST 66TH STREET REALTY CORP., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. MICHAEL CURRY AND MRS. MICHAEL, CURRY, res-ap

11-262/263. 354 EAST 66TH STREET REALTY CORP., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. MICHAEL CURRY AND MRS. MICHAEL, CURRY, res-ap — Order (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), dated December 6, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal