2015 NY Slip Op 50089

Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Source: Official source
Original Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50089.htm ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,711 chars

right to collect the rent increase.

Interestingly, the Petitioners also argue that the Respondent failed to prove
that the landlord drafted the lease. The attorney states that when you read the lease, it is a
very well-negotiated lease— an arm's length transaction and that there was no
testimony on either side who drafted this lease (DeLotto, p.55, lines 3-8). She states that
there are two important terms that demonstrate that both parties drafted the lease. In fact,
two significant terms, namely the option to buy and the right of first refusal to purchase,
are atypical terms that are favorable to the tenant, and demonstrate that the agreement
was not just your customary pro-landlord agreement but an agreement that was obviously
worked out between the parties.

The Petitioner's attorney also contends that the late fees and interest
provisions should be enforced by this Court, and notwithstanding the Respondent's
argument that they do not owe the amount demanded by the landlord, their admission
through their own calculations, constitutes grounds for the imposition of both late fees
and interest. According to the Petitioners, the rent demand was made in good faith, and
not only did the Respondent admit to owing at least $139,000.00, they admit that they
have deposited this sum in escrow. Under these facts, the Petitioners still urge this Court
to find that this rent deposit payment made by the Respondent is a definite
acknowledgement of the debt and accordingly, the Petitioners are entitled to late fees and
interest.

As set forth in the record, the attorneys agreed to submit post-trial briefs. In
the Respondent's post-trial memorandum of law, for the sake of brevity, the Respondent