36 & 37 Realty, LLC v. BR 1147, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 31564(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMay 3, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31564(U) (36 & 37 Realty, LLC v. BR 1147, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
36 & 37 Realty, LLC v. BR 1147, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 31564(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

36 & 37 Realty, LLC v BR 1147, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31564(U) May 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155940/2020 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 155940/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 174 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155940/2020 36 AND 37 REALTY, LLC, MOTION DATE 02/02/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- BR 1147, LLC D/B/A CLEAN LAUNDRY, STEPHEN CHUN, DECISION + ORDER ON ABC CORP. MOTION Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .

In this commercial landlord-tenant action, plaintiff-landlord moves for summary

judgment on its claims for rent arrears and attorneys’ fees. Defendant BR 1147 LLC d/b/a Clean

Laundry (Clean Laundry) is the tenant and defendant Stephen Chun is the guarantor.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the owner of the building located at 309 East 37th Street, New York, NY

10016. By lease dated February of 2010, and by assignment and extension of the lease dated

November 1, 2017, plaintiff leased “the easterly ground floor store” of the property (the

premises) to the tenant, a laundromat, with a term end date of February 29, 2027 (NYSCEF Doc

Nos 152-153). The lease was secured by a guaranty, executed by the guarantor on November 1,

2017 (NYSCEF Doc No 154).

Plaintiff alleges that in 2020, the tenant stopped paying rent and additional rent. On June

26, 2020, plaintiff served the tenant with a 14-day notice to cure demanding unpaid rent

155940/2020 36 AND 37 REALTY, LLC vs. BR 1147, LLC D/B/A CLEAN Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 004

1 of 7 [* 1] INDEX NO. 155940/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 174 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2024

(NYSCEF Doc No 155), but the tenant did not cure its default. Plaintiff then filed a complaint,

seeking: (1) rent due as of the date of filing (July 31, 2020) as against the guarantor; (2) rent due

for the remainder of the lease term as against the guarantor; (3) a judgment of ejectment as

against the tenant; (4) rent due as of July 31, 2020 as against the tenant; (2) rent due for the

remainder of the lease term as against the tenant; and (6) an award of attorneys’ fees as against

both defendants (NYSCEF Doc No 1).1

The tenant vacated the premises on February 5, 2022, mooting the issue of ejectment.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on its remaining five causes of action (NYSCEF

Doc No 149). Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the damages sought are

excessive and unsupported in the absence of an acceleration clause (NYSCEF Doc No 167).

DISCUSSION

“It is well settled that ‘the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima

facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.’” (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,

1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “Once such a prima

facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issues of fact which require a

trial of the action.” (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-554 [1st Dept 2010], citing Alvarez,

68 NY2d at 342). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be examined “in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party” (Schmidt v One New York Plaza Co., 153

1 Though described in the complaint as “causes of action,” plaintiff fails to connect the relief sought (e.g., rent due through July 31, 2020) with its causes of action (e.g., breach of the lease). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment suffers the same defect. Therefore, for the purposes of this decision and order, reference to plaintiff’s “causes of action” shall be as follows: (1) breach of the guaranty as against the guarantor through July 31, 2020; (2) breach of the guaranty as against the guarantor for the remainder of the lease term; (3) ejectment as against the tenant; (4) breach of the lease as against the tenant through July 31, 2020; (5) breach of the lease as against the tenant for the remainder of the lease; and (6) attorneys’ fees as against both defendants. 155940/2020 36 AND 37 REALTY, LLC vs. BR 1147, LLC D/B/A CLEAN Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 004

2 of 7 [* 2] INDEX NO. 155940/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 174 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2024

AD3d 427, 428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011]) and

bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of fact (Rotuba

Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a

triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (id.).

i. Rent Due Through July 31, 2020

Plaintiff has established its entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of the tenant

and the guarantor’s liability for rent and additional rent payments owed at the time that plaintiff

filed suit. The lease obligates the tenant to pay monthly rent payments and additional rent

(NYSCEF Doc No 152), and the guaranty obligates the guarantor to make such payments in the

event of the tenant’s default (NYSCEF Doc No 154), yet defendants failed to perform these

obligations (NYSCEF Doc No 155 [14-day notice of default, dated June 25, 2020 and served the

following day, indicating that rent payments remained outstanding for February through June of

2020]). Defendants do not raise an issue of fact in response, or even address plaintiff’s argument

with respect to payments for this time period. Additionally, the guarantor does not dispute

plaintiff’s claim that NYC Admin Code § 22-1005 does not apply to him because the laundromat

was deemed an essential business and remained open during the pandemic. Accordingly, the part

of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment as against the tenant and the guarantor for the

rent and additional rent arrears due through July 31, 2020 will be granted on the issue of liability.

However, since plaintiff has not provided a ledger or other evidence to sufficiently establish the

amount sought for this period, the amount due will be determined at trial.

ii. Rent Due Through the End of the Lease Term

In support of its claim for payment through the remainder of the lease term, plaintiff

relies on Article 18 of the lease, which provides that:

155940/2020 36 AND 37 REALTY, LLC vs. BR 1147, LLC D/B/A CLEAN Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 004

3 of 7 [* 3] INDEX NO. 155940/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 174 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2024

In the case of any such default,2 re-entry, expiration and/or dispossess by summary proceedings or otherwise, . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC
960 N.E.2d 948 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos
385 N.E.2d 1068 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Cabrera v. Rodriguez
72 A.D.3d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Beaumont Offset Corp. v. Zito
256 A.D.2d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 31564(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/36-37-realty-llc-v-br-1147-llc-nysupctnewyork-2024.