Marshalls of MA, Inc. v CAC Atl., LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31974(U) June 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 500695/2022 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMM PART 8 . -·-- - - . - - - -·- - . ·- - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -.- .... ·-.- . X MARSHALLS OF MA, INC. , Plaintiff, Decision ahd order
- against - Index No. 50-0695/2022
CAC ATLANTIC, LLC, Defendant, June 4, 2024 ---- .---. -- -·-.- ------.---·---. ----- .. .. .------·-·}{
PRESENT : HON . LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #7
The defendant has moved pursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to
reargue a decision and order dated March 7, 2024 that denied the
defendant's motion seeking summary judgement and that granted trre
plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgement; The plaintiff has
opposed the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and
arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now
makes the following determination.
As recorded in prior orders, on January 31, 2014 the
plaintiff leased space fr.om the defendant at 66 Boerum Place in
Kings County. Although the cou:tt stated that at the time the
lease was entered into between the parti.e$ a four-story structure
existed, in fact, no such structure existed. However, the lease
did contemplate a four-story building. Thus, Exhibit A of the
lease states that ''the Demised Premises are situated within a
four-story building" ( see, Lease, Exh.ibi t A, [N):SCEF Doc. No.
169]). In any event, a dispute arose concerning the plaintiff;s
share Crf taxes that were due. The dispute revol v~d around an
additional seven residential stories that were built turning a
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
four-story building into ah eleven-story mixed use building. The
defendant sought 42. 98% of the· building's total taxes from the
plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to pay anything other than
42.98% of the taxes assessed regarding the cori:rrri.ercial space. The
-court granted the plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgement
arguing there were no questions o:f fact the plaintiff was only
responsible for 42.98% of the commercial space and not 42.98% of
the entire building.
The defendant has nciw moved seeking to reargue that
determination. First, the defendant argues the court erred when
it concludecJ the building was already constructed when the lease
was entered into between the parties. Second, the defendants
argue . the court erred by failing. to consider that the parties
knew, when the lease was executed, that more floors would be
added to the building and that the plaintiff would be required to
pay its share of the taxes for those added floors.
Conclu.sion:s of Law
A motion to reargue must be based upon the fact the court
overlooked or misapprehended fact or law or for some other re·ason
mistakenly arrived at in its earlier decision (Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co., v. Russo, 17b AD3d 9,52, 96 NYS3d 617 [2d
Dept . , 2019].) .
.First; the mere fact the court erred by reciting that a
_____________________________________________ [* 2] 2 of 5 _.;..,·'••-· FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
four-story building actual,ly existeci_ when the parties entered
into the lease is irrelevant. That fact had no bearing on.the
court's decision. This is particularly true since there is no
dispute that the lease clearly t::ontemplates a four,-story building
as noted.
The defendant a:rgµes the parties contemplated additioni3l
floors would be bµilt. The lease actually only mentions any
residential uni ts one time. In Schedule F the lease .lists
prohibited uses and includes "any living quarters, !=,,leeping
apartments, or lodging rooms (excluding the residential units to
be constructed by Landlord at the Building)" (see, Leaser
Schedule F (7) [NYSCEF Doc. No. 169J) . In addition, S.chedule I of
the lease contains a rendering of an eleven story building.
FUrtherj- Alex Adjmi the president of defendant's mani3.gement
company stated that Marshalls was aware of the intent to
construct an eleven-story ~ixed use building at the pre~ises
(see, Af-fidavit of Alex Adjmi [NYSCEF Doc. No. 208]). However,
notwithstanding an isolated reference in the le.ase .or testimony
supporting that reference there is no basis to conclude there was
ever ahy intention for the plaintiff to pay the taxes for any
residential portions.
These two issues of fact that are raised, namely that the
court was. mistaken ab.out the existence of the building a_nd the
fact there is evi,dence Marshalls knew of impending construction
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
,at the. builq.ing does not detna_nd a review of the court's dec,ision
at all. The reargument mot:i.on does not address the law upon
whi c.h the ·e.ourt rested its: conclusiori, s pe ci:fi cal ly that_
~ddi tional taxes 1:;lased U:pon tax-e·scalatio n clauses. whereby the
improvements accrue solely to the landlord or owner cannot be
imposed upon the- tena.n.:t. The. defendant has failed to point out any ,error _.in that rega_rd. .Moreove:r, the prior decis_ion_ -;3.lready
considered whether any questions of fact exist whether the pla-i.ntiff knew about any proposed j,,-rrtpr9vemerit_s or expansion. ·The
court pointed to specific language in the lease which
unmistakably demonstrated the tenant was only ·;responsible for the
commercial p.orti._on of. the le-ase. The fa-ct t).1.e-re may be. evicien¢e
the tenant was aware there would be an eleven-story, building as
oppos·ed to a- fifty,.;...st:ory building or a building- of unknown h~-i.ght
doe$.-. not alter the· cci.n.G_lµsio:n_ the l.anguage of the lease
specifically and.exclusiv ely required the tenant to pay 42.9$% of
·the cotruner.cial spa-ce ap.d nothing ·further._ Th~ defendant argrnfs
the c:qurt m:ust look to the surrounding circiliristan,ce. s of the ],,ease
formation when determining the meaning of sp.ecific l"eas.e·
·provi.s:ions. However,- it is well s-ettled that· an agteeme-n.t that
is clear and unambiguous on its face shall be enf.o.l'."ced according
to it~ pl-_ain te-.tms (Greenfield V. Philles Records, '.Inc·., 98" _ijY2c:i
562, 750 NYS2d 565 [2002.]). E~trinsic evid~nce_ demona:tratin g the
true intent o{ the parties is g·e··ner·ally inadrttiss'ible ( Pentacon
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
LLC v. 422 Knickerbocker LLC; 165 AD3d 829, 86 NYS3d 177 [2d Dept,, 2018]). Such extrinsic evidence may be admissible if an
ambiguity exists and whether such ambiguity exists is a, question
of law (N.RT New York, LLC, Brown, 167 AD3d 764, 89 NYS3d 695 [2d
Dept,, 2018']).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marshalls of MA, Inc. v CAC Atl., LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31974(U) June 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 500695/2022 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMM PART 8 . -·-- - - . - - - -·- - . ·- - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -.- .... ·-.- . X MARSHALLS OF MA, INC. , Plaintiff, Decision ahd order
- against - Index No. 50-0695/2022
CAC ATLANTIC, LLC, Defendant, June 4, 2024 ---- .---. -- -·-.- ------.---·---. ----- .. .. .------·-·}{
PRESENT : HON . LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #7
The defendant has moved pursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to
reargue a decision and order dated March 7, 2024 that denied the
defendant's motion seeking summary judgement and that granted trre
plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgement; The plaintiff has
opposed the motion. Papers were submitted by the parties and
arguments held. After reviewing all the arguments this court now
makes the following determination.
As recorded in prior orders, on January 31, 2014 the
plaintiff leased space fr.om the defendant at 66 Boerum Place in
Kings County. Although the cou:tt stated that at the time the
lease was entered into between the parti.e$ a four-story structure
existed, in fact, no such structure existed. However, the lease
did contemplate a four-story building. Thus, Exhibit A of the
lease states that ''the Demised Premises are situated within a
four-story building" ( see, Lease, Exh.ibi t A, [N):SCEF Doc. No.
169]). In any event, a dispute arose concerning the plaintiff;s
share Crf taxes that were due. The dispute revol v~d around an
additional seven residential stories that were built turning a
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
four-story building into ah eleven-story mixed use building. The
defendant sought 42. 98% of the· building's total taxes from the
plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to pay anything other than
42.98% of the taxes assessed regarding the cori:rrri.ercial space. The
-court granted the plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgement
arguing there were no questions o:f fact the plaintiff was only
responsible for 42.98% of the commercial space and not 42.98% of
the entire building.
The defendant has nciw moved seeking to reargue that
determination. First, the defendant argues the court erred when
it concludecJ the building was already constructed when the lease
was entered into between the parties. Second, the defendants
argue . the court erred by failing. to consider that the parties
knew, when the lease was executed, that more floors would be
added to the building and that the plaintiff would be required to
pay its share of the taxes for those added floors.
Conclu.sion:s of Law
A motion to reargue must be based upon the fact the court
overlooked or misapprehended fact or law or for some other re·ason
mistakenly arrived at in its earlier decision (Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co., v. Russo, 17b AD3d 9,52, 96 NYS3d 617 [2d
Dept . , 2019].) .
.First; the mere fact the court erred by reciting that a
_____________________________________________ [* 2] 2 of 5 _.;..,·'••-· FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
four-story building actual,ly existeci_ when the parties entered
into the lease is irrelevant. That fact had no bearing on.the
court's decision. This is particularly true since there is no
dispute that the lease clearly t::ontemplates a four,-story building
as noted.
The defendant a:rgµes the parties contemplated additioni3l
floors would be bµilt. The lease actually only mentions any
residential uni ts one time. In Schedule F the lease .lists
prohibited uses and includes "any living quarters, !=,,leeping
apartments, or lodging rooms (excluding the residential units to
be constructed by Landlord at the Building)" (see, Leaser
Schedule F (7) [NYSCEF Doc. No. 169J) . In addition, S.chedule I of
the lease contains a rendering of an eleven story building.
FUrtherj- Alex Adjmi the president of defendant's mani3.gement
company stated that Marshalls was aware of the intent to
construct an eleven-story ~ixed use building at the pre~ises
(see, Af-fidavit of Alex Adjmi [NYSCEF Doc. No. 208]). However,
notwithstanding an isolated reference in the le.ase .or testimony
supporting that reference there is no basis to conclude there was
ever ahy intention for the plaintiff to pay the taxes for any
residential portions.
These two issues of fact that are raised, namely that the
court was. mistaken ab.out the existence of the building a_nd the
fact there is evi,dence Marshalls knew of impending construction
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
,at the. builq.ing does not detna_nd a review of the court's dec,ision
at all. The reargument mot:i.on does not address the law upon
whi c.h the ·e.ourt rested its: conclusiori, s pe ci:fi cal ly that_
~ddi tional taxes 1:;lased U:pon tax-e·scalatio n clauses. whereby the
improvements accrue solely to the landlord or owner cannot be
imposed upon the- tena.n.:t. The. defendant has failed to point out any ,error _.in that rega_rd. .Moreove:r, the prior decis_ion_ -;3.lready
considered whether any questions of fact exist whether the pla-i.ntiff knew about any proposed j,,-rrtpr9vemerit_s or expansion. ·The
court pointed to specific language in the lease which
unmistakably demonstrated the tenant was only ·;responsible for the
commercial p.orti._on of. the le-ase. The fa-ct t).1.e-re may be. evicien¢e
the tenant was aware there would be an eleven-story, building as
oppos·ed to a- fifty,.;...st:ory building or a building- of unknown h~-i.ght
doe$.-. not alter the· cci.n.G_lµsio:n_ the l.anguage of the lease
specifically and.exclusiv ely required the tenant to pay 42.9$% of
·the cotruner.cial spa-ce ap.d nothing ·further._ Th~ defendant argrnfs
the c:qurt m:ust look to the surrounding circiliristan,ce. s of the ],,ease
formation when determining the meaning of sp.ecific l"eas.e·
·provi.s:ions. However,- it is well s-ettled that· an agteeme-n.t that
is clear and unambiguous on its face shall be enf.o.l'."ced according
to it~ pl-_ain te-.tms (Greenfield V. Philles Records, '.Inc·., 98" _ijY2c:i
562, 750 NYS2d 565 [2002.]). E~trinsic evid~nce_ demona:tratin g the
true intent o{ the parties is g·e··ner·ally inadrttiss'ible ( Pentacon
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2024 01:10 PM INDEX NO. 500695/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2024
LLC v. 422 Knickerbocker LLC; 165 AD3d 829, 86 NYS3d 177 [2d Dept,, 2018]). Such extrinsic evidence may be admissible if an
ambiguity exists and whether such ambiguity exists is a, question
of law (N.RT New York, LLC, Brown, 167 AD3d 764, 89 NYS3d 695 [2d
Dept,, 2018']). Further, extrinsic evidence may not be submitted
to ere.ate an ambiguity (Brad H. v. City of New York, 17 NY3d 180,
921 NYS2d 221 [2017]). A contract will be cQn$idered ambiguous
if susceptible to more tha:n one interpretation ( id) . Thus, as
noted, without any ambiguity the plain meaning of the contract
terms control (Goetz v. Trinidad, 168 AD3d 6-88, 91 NYS3d 513 [2d
Dept., 2019]). Tn this case there are no contact terms that are
ambiguous. As explained in the prior decision, the lease unequivocally requires the tenant to pay taxes only for the
coIT1TI1.ercial portion. The plaintiff's knowledge of a possible
expansion does not mean there are questions whether the plaintiff
agreed to pay the taxes for that contemplated expansion. There
is QO basis whatsoever imposing such taxes on the plaintiff. Con5equerttly, the defendant' 5. $ubjective belief the tenant is
obligated cannot raise any questions of fact.
Therefore, basetj on the foregoing, the motion seeking
reargument is denied~
ENTER: DAT'ED: June 4., 2024 BrOoklyl"l.~ N .. Y. Hon; JS.C
5 of 5 [* 5]