Category Archives: Landlord-Tenant

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Failed romantic relationships, in the course of which the parties purchased and sold real property and other assets, are a constant source of post-breakup litigation asserting claims for “constructive trust” and/or “unjust enrichment”. But, as a recent case illustrates, even where based on the same “facts”, the two distinguishable causes of action may lead to different outcomes.

Jim Clark and Michele Locey were involved in a long-term intimate relationship. Clark was in the business of building residential homes and Locey was a real estate broker. Together, they engaged in a business venture in which they would buy parcels of land, build residential homes, and sell for a profit. In 2005, they bought a lot in Florida as tenants in common for their personal use and as an investment and built a house on the property. Clark ultimately contributed approximately $103,000 to that property and Locey invested approximately $400,000. In 2009, Clark deeded his interest in the Florida property to Locey’s living trust and Clark was discharged from the mortgage. In early 2012, they decided to sell the Florida property. Clark then again deeded his interest in the Florida property to Locey’s living trust upon the request of the title company.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

A lease term ends but the tenant nevertheless remains in possession. The tenant becomes a month-to-month “holdover” tenant on the same terms as the lease that ended. But what if the lease that was concluded contained an option to purchase the premises? Was the exercise of that option legally enforceable by the holdover/tenant?

Valeria McMillan and Roderick Francis (tenants) sued Christoper Marengo for specific performance of a purchase option contained in a lease for real property. They entered into a lease with Jack Colbert dated October 26, 2012, for property located in Bronx County, to be used as a residence and home-based business. The lease contained a purchase option. The option clause provided, in part:

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Certain defenses to claims by landlords against commercial tenants for rent accrued but unpaid during the pandemic have become almost “boilerplate.” The frustration of performance. Impossibility of performance. They were closed by casualty. But, as a recent case illustrates, joining that panoply is the defense that governmentally-ordered restrictions or shutdowns constituted a taking by eminent domain that excused the payment of rent.

111Fulton St. Investors, LLC is the landlord for a commercial space located on the ground floor of a building in Manhattan. Fulton Quality LLC entered into a lease for the premises in 2011 for a twelve-year term. Quality runs a restaurant at the site. Investors insisted that Quality was in default of the lease and pointed to an October 30, 2019 letter allegedly sent to Quality that sets forth the basis of the default. Quality later cured its defaults but stopped making payments in March 2020. Another default letter was sent in June 2020. Investors sued and moved for summary judgment seeking the amount it claimed was due.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Commercial tenants routinely assert both frustrations of purpose and impossibility of performance as defenses to claims for non-payment of rent accruing during the pandemic. And, as a recent case illustrates, the defense of actual or constructive eviction has joined that panoply, with a similar result.

Valentino U.S.A., Inc.’s entered into a lease with Thor 693 LLC for lower level and ground/second/third-floor space at 693 Fifth Avenue for the display and sale of luxury womenswear, menswear, goods, and accessories.

Copyright by, and republished with permission of,  Apartment Law Insider

A tenant who flouts building rules and disregards the city’s mask mandate is likely to spark complaints from neighbors and staff members who are concerned about their health. The eviction moratorium doesn’t mean a landlord can’t take the matter to court. Consider the recent case of a Brooklyn landlord who sought injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order against a tenant based upon nuisance conduct that created health and safety risks affecting other occupants of the building.

What Happened

The landlord claimed that the tenant violated his lease and building rules because he: (1) refused to wear a mask over his nose and mouth or socially distance in common areas and the gym; (2) allowed his dog to run “off leash”; and (3) regularly caused marijuana smoke to emanate from his apartment. The landlord submitted copies of the lease agreements, multiple photos showing COVID-19-related signs posted throughout common areas, and affidavits from staff members and the tenant living in the apartment directly beneath the problem tenant.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Commercial tenants sued by their landlords for non-payment of rent have resurrected a broad panoply of commercial contract “defenses” related to the pandemic-ordered shutdowns—such as casualty, frustration, and impossibility of performance. For the most part, the “defenses” failed. But, as a decision released late last week illustrates, the “defenses” are not always futile.

The Governor of New York (by Executive Order) and the New York City Council (by amendment to the Administrative Code) imposed a moratorium on commercial evictions and suits on personal guarantees where the non-payment of rent is caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But the Orders and Code do not prohibit lawsuits against the tenant for rent.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Terry Kellman sued Poonam Apts. LLC, the owner of 180 Park Hill Avenue on Staten Island, and Jelene Greenfield, the building’s managing agent, for injuries sustained when he was shot at the building by Angelo Nesemi.

Kellman asserted two causes of action for negligence. In the second negligence claim, he asserted that Poonam and Greenfield were negligent in failing to take proper precautions for his safety, hiring, screening, training, supervising of its employees, and failing to adopt appropriate procedures for the protection of visitors. Poonam and Greenfield moved to dismiss the complaint.