Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50745(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd. (Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Sherwood Suffolk Co., Appellant,

against

Panorama Catering, Ltd., Doing Business as Obsessions, Respondent, and "John Doe," Undertenant.

Alan B. Katz of counsel, for appellant. Panorama Catering, Ltd., d/b/a Obsessions, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (John P. Schettino, J.), dated May 14, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking attorney's fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding after tenant's "sister" company had paid rent to landlord via a bank check and landlord had rejected the check. Tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding, and landlord cross-moved for summary judgment and for attorney's fees. Before the District Court decided the motions, tenant tendered, and landlord accepted, payment of the arrears. In an order dated May 14, 2018, the District Court granted tenant's motion and denied landlord's cross motion. As limited by its brief, landlord appeals from so much of the order as denied the branch of its cross motion seeking attorney's fees.

Landlord would be entitled to attorney's fees only if it was the prevailing party in this proceeding. As landlord did not obtain a judgment of possession for the rental arrears, it was not the prevailing party (see Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410 [1993]; Fairview Hous., LLC v Dickens, 39 Misc 3d 146[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50848[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]; Babylon Vil. Equities v Mitchell, 11 Misc 3d 84, 85 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006] [the landlord was not entitled to attorney's fees in a nonpayment proceeding where the landlord had accepted the arrears, without prejudice, because the "landlord did not prevail with respect to the central relief sought because there was no possessory judgment which [*2]included arrears in rent"]). Consequently, the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking attorney's fees was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 18, 2020

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

Sherwood Suffolk Co., Appellant,

against

Panorama Catering, Ltd., Doing Business as Obsessions, Respondent, and "John Doe," Undertenant.

Alan B. Katz of counsel, for appellant. Panorama Catering, Ltd., d/b/a Obsessions, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (John P. Schettino, J.), dated May 14, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking attorney's fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding after tenant's "sister" company had paid rent to landlord via a bank check and landlord had rejected the check. Tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding, and landlord cross-moved for summary judgment and for attorney's fees. Before the District Court decided the motions, tenant tendered, and landlord accepted, payment of the arrears. In an order dated May 14, 2018, the District Court granted tenant's motion and denied landlord's cross motion. As limited by its brief, landlord appeals from so much of the order as denied the branch of its cross motion seeking attorney's fees.

Landlord would be entitled to attorney's fees only if it was the prevailing party in this proceeding. As landlord did not obtain a judgment of possession for the rental arrears, it was not the prevailing party (see Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410 [1993]; Fairview Hous., LLC v Dickens, 39 Misc 3d 146[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50848[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]; Babylon Vil. Equities v Mitchell, 11 Misc 3d 84, 85 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006] [the landlord was not entitled to attorney's fees in a nonpayment proceeding where the landlord had accepted the arrears, without prejudice, because the "landlord did not prevail with respect to the central relief sought because there was no possessory judgment which [*2]included arrears in rent"]). Consequently, the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking attorney's fees was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 18, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sherwood Suffolk Co. v. Panorama Catering, Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwood-suffolk-co-v-panorama-catering-ltd-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack