46 Warren, LLC v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

46 Warren, LLC v. Lynch

2017 NY Slip Op 8317, 155 A.D.3d 547, 64 N.Y.S.3d 640

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 28, 2017

Docket5048 570028/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8317 (46 Warren, LLC v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

46 Warren, LLC v. Lynch, 2017 NY Slip Op 8317, 155 A.D.3d 547, 64 N.Y.S.3d 640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 23, 2015, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered September 17, 2014, awarding petitioner landlord unpaid rent, late charges and interest, upon an order that granted petitioner summary judgment on its claim for unpaid rent, and dismissing respondent tenant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While a warranty of habitability will not be implied in a commercial lease (Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 AD3d 361, 364 [1st Dept 2006]; see Real Property Law § 235-b), respondent does not rely on an implied warranty. She cites the express terms of the subject lease, which was prepared by petitioner, which permitted only residential use, and included petitioner’s warranty of habitability and agreement to provide certain services, such as heat and hot water, enforceable by the warranty of habitability. The parties acknowledge that they agreed that respondent could use the premises for commercial purposes, setting up the apartment as a home office. However, petitioner neither sought reformation of the lease nor demonstrated “unusual circumstances” that would relieve it of its duty to abide by the lease terms (see George Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 218 [1978]).

Concur— Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 23, 2015, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered September 17, 2014, awarding petitioner landlord unpaid rent, late charges and interest, upon an order that granted petitioner summary judgment on its claim for unpaid rent, and dismissing respondent tenant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While a warranty of habitability will not be implied in a commercial lease (Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 AD3d 361, 364 [1st Dept 2006]; see Real Property Law § 235-b), respondent does not rely on an implied warranty. She cites the express terms of the subject lease, which was prepared by petitioner, which permitted only residential use, and included petitioner’s warranty of habitability and agreement to provide certain services, such as heat and hot water, enforceable by the warranty of habitability. The parties acknowledge that they agreed that respondent could use the premises for commercial purposes, setting up the apartment as a home office. However, petitioner neither sought reformation of the lease nor demonstrated “unusual circumstances” that would relieve it of its duty to abide by the lease terms (see George Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 218 [1978]).

Concur— Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8317, 155 A.D.3d 547, 64 N.Y.S.3d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/46-warren-llc-v-lynch-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack