54-56 Mgt. Corp. v. MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc.

76 Misc. 3d 136(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50949(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: September 27, 2022
• Docket: 570183/22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

54-56 Mgt. Corp. v MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 50949(U)) [*1]

54-56 Mgt. Corp. v MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc.

2022 NY Slip Op 50949(U) [76 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on September 27, 2022

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570183/22

54-56 Management Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc., Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant, as limited by its brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), dated May 27, 2022, which granted landlord's motion to dismiss the first and second affirmative defenses and for summary judgment on the petition in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), dated May 27, 2022, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The written rent demand issued personally by "54-56 Management Corp. Landlord," specifying the amount of rent allegedly due by tenant and the period during which such rent accrued, satisfied the requirements of RPAPL 711(2) and was a sufficient predicate for the maintenance of this commercial nonpayment summary proceeding (see 1590 Lexington LLC v 1590 Corp., 53 Misc 3d 155[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51766[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Brusco v Miller, 167 Misc 2d 54 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]). Contrary to tenant's assertion, "there is no signature requirement in RPAPL . . . 711[2]" (L & B 595 Madison Inc. v Susan Sheehan Inc., NYLJ, August 31, 1994, at 22, col.6 1994 NY Misc Lexis 711 [Civ Ct, NY County, Gische, J.]).

Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is. (67 NY2d 792 [1986]), relied upon by tenant, is inapposite because tenant cites to no provision in the "lease between the parties requiring that the demand be signed by the landlord" (Yui Woon Kwong v Sun Po Eng, 183 AD2d 558, 560 [1992]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: September 27, 2022