Plaza Collectibles Corp. v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plaza Collectibles Corp. v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 8196, 155 A.D.3d 512, 65 N.Y.S.3d 41

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

Docket5013 156627/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8196 (Plaza Collectibles Corp. v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.) 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

Plaza Collectibles Corp. v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 8196, 155 A.D.3d 512, 65 N.Y.S.3d 41 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Yellowstone injunction, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a temporary restraining order, and denied plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the parties’ lease had been renewed, unanimously modified, on the law, solely to declare that the lease was not renewed, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Yellowstone injunction and granted defendant’s motion to vacate the temporary restraining order because plaintiffs no longer held a lease to the premises (see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Alternatively, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their readiness to cure any claimed default.

The court erred in finding that plaintiffs did not validly exercise the option to renew the lease on the ground that the letter declaring their intent to do so was not sent more than 180 days before the lease’s expiration. As the parties admit, the lease was set to expire on December 31, 2014, not September 19, 2014. Thus, plaintiffs’ April 12, 2014 letter was timely. Nevertheless, plaintiffs did not validly exercise the renewal option, because the letter did not strictly comply with the written notice requirements of the lease (see American Realty Co. v 64 B Venture, 176 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 756 [1992]). In any event, defendant was permitted to cancel the renewal option, because, at the time they sought to exercise it, plaintiffs were in incurable breach of the lease (see Nobu Next Door v Fine Arts Hous., 3 AD3d 335, 336 [1st Dept 2004], affd 4 NY3d 839 [2005]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Yellowstone injunction, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a temporary restraining order, and denied plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the parties’ lease had been renewed, unanimously modified, on the law, solely to declare that the lease was not renewed, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Yellowstone injunction and granted defendant’s motion to vacate the temporary restraining order because plaintiffs no longer held a lease to the premises (see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc., 93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Alternatively, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their readiness to cure any claimed default.

The court erred in finding that plaintiffs did not validly exercise the option to renew the lease on the ground that the letter declaring their intent to do so was not sent more than 180 days before the lease’s expiration. As the parties admit, the lease was set to expire on December 31, 2014, not September 19, 2014. Thus, plaintiffs’ April 12, 2014 letter was timely. Nevertheless, plaintiffs did not validly exercise the renewal option, because the letter did not strictly comply with the written notice requirements of the lease (see American Realty Co. v 64 B Venture, 176 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 756 [1992]). In any event, defendant was permitted to cancel the renewal option, because, at the time they sought to exercise it, plaintiffs were in incurable breach of the lease (see Nobu Next Door v Fine Arts Hous., 3 AD3d 335, 336 [1st Dept 2004], affd 4 NY3d 839 [2005]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8196, 155 A.D.3d 512, 65 N.Y.S.3d 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaza-collectibles-corp-v-directors-guild-of-america-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack