After Midnight Co. v. MIP 145 East 57th Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

After Midnight Co. v. MIP 145 East 57th Street, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 76, 146 A.D.3d 446, 43 N.Y.S.3d 749

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2017

Docket2644 151014/15

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 76 (After Midnight Co. v. MIP 145 East 57th Street, LLC) 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

After Midnight Co. v. MIP 145 East 57th Street, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 76, 146 A.D.3d 446, 43 N.Y.S.3d 749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*447 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about November 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion dismissing in part the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly found that article 4 of the parties’ lease precludes plaintiff, a commercial tenant, from bringing any claim against defendant landlord for inconvenience, annoyance, or injury to plaintiff’s business. This Court has repeatedly interpreted substantially identical lease provisions in this way (see e.g. Bowlmor Times Sq. LLC v AI 229 W. 43rd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 106 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2013]; Duane Reade v 405 Lexington, L.L.C., 22 AD3d 108, 111, 112 [1st Dept 2005]; Periphery Loungewear v Kantron Roofing Corp., 190 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]).

Plaintiff’s fraud claim failed to allege particular facts (see CPLR 3016 [b]) and was duplicative of the breach of contract claim (International Plaza Assoc., L.P. v Lacher, 63 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2009]).

The negligence claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]). In addition, plaintiff failed to allege conduct that “smack [ed] of intentional wrongdoing” sufficient to support a claim for gross negligence {id. at 554 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiff alleged no more than breach of a private contract and loss of the benefit of its bargain.

The IAS court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust, since the claims involve subject matter covered by the parties’ enforceable contract (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

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

*447 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about November 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion dismissing in part the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly found that article 4 of the parties’ lease precludes plaintiff, a commercial tenant, from bringing any claim against defendant landlord for inconvenience, annoyance, or injury to plaintiff’s business. This Court has repeatedly interpreted substantially identical lease provisions in this way (see e.g. Bowlmor Times Sq. LLC v AI 229 W. 43rd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 106 AD3d 646, 647 [1st Dept 2013]; Duane Reade v 405 Lexington, L.L.C., 22 AD3d 108, 111, 112 [1st Dept 2005]; Periphery Loungewear v Kantron Roofing Corp., 190 AD2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]).

Plaintiff’s fraud claim failed to allege particular facts (see CPLR 3016 [b]) and was duplicative of the breach of contract claim (International Plaza Assoc., L.P. v Lacher, 63 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2009]).

The negligence claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551 [1992]). In addition, plaintiff failed to allege conduct that “smack [ed] of intentional wrongdoing” sufficient to support a claim for gross negligence {id. at 554 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiff alleged no more than breach of a private contract and loss of the benefit of its bargain.

The IAS court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust, since the claims involve subject matter covered by the parties’ enforceable contract (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 76, 146 A.D.3d 446, 43 N.Y.S.3d 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/after-midnight-co-v-mip-145-east-57th-street-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack