Justice Carolyn Demarest
This breach of contract action arose from an agreement between the parties for the installation and maintenance of coin-operated laundry equipment to be used by tenant's of defendant's building. The agreement provided lessor would promptly notify lessee of any equipment malfunctions or needed repairs. Defendant complained to plaintiff in February 2013 of out of service machines, despite numerous calls requesting repairs. Defendant argued that by May 2013 one machine was still not working and plaintiff did not return to the building since April 16. Thus, defendant sent plaintiff a notice of termination. Plaintiff argued it had not breached the agreement, and defendant cross-moved for dismissal. Defendant argued it had the right to terminate due to plaintiff's failure to comply with a notice to cure, especially since one machine still required repairs. The court rejected such argument finding the agreement merely stated plaintiff was responsible for maintaining the machines and required repairs within 24 hours of notice. It found there was no evidence of any notice that as of May 21, 2013 one machine remained broken, hence, defendant failed to establish the condition precedent to plaintiff's obligation to repair. Hence, the court ruled plaintiff did not breach the agreement, denying dismissal.
