Co., 1978); Airco Alloys v. Niagra Corp., 76 AD2d 68, 430 N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th
Dept. 1980).
Laches is an equitable doctrine based on fairness (Continental Cas. Co. v. Employers
Ins. Co. of Wausau, 60 AD3d 128, 137, 871 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2008]). For the
doctrine to apply, there must be a showing of unexplained delay and prejudice (see
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 816, 766
N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 [2003]). Whether a party has suffered "injury, change of
position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from the delay" (Matter
of Linker, 23 AD3d 186, 189, 803 N.Y.S.2d 534 [2005], quoting Skrodelis v.
Norbergs, 272 AD2d 316, 317, 707 N.Y.S.2d 197 [2000] ) "depends on the facts of
the case" (Continental Cas. Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 60 AD3d at
137, 871 N.Y.S.2d 48).
More importantly, for this proceeding, the case law holds that the defense of
laches is not a viable defense to commercial nonpayment disputes. See Landlord
and Tenant Practice in New York, Section 14:351 at 14—186 [West's NY
Practice Series, vol F, 2007] ) footnote No.1 which cites: Kalimian v. Collezioni Fifth
Ave., Inc., N.Y.L.J., 11/13/98, p. 28, col. 3 (App.Term, 1st Dep't); U.B.O. Realty Corp.
v. Fulton, N.Y.L.J., 9/8/93, p. 21, col. 1 (App.Term, 1st Dep't) (laches
"finds application only in the context of residential nonpayments"). Similarly, the court in
South Street Seaport v.
Ry—Allie Candy Corp., 14 Misc 3d 1208, 836 N.Y.S.2d 490 (Civ Ct,
NYC 2006), affirmed that laches doesn't apply to commercial summary proceedings; 501
Seventh Ave. Associates v. 501 Seventh Ave. Bake Corp., 2002 WL 31065240,
2007 NY Slip Op 50362 (Civ Ct, NYC 2002); see also Karagiannis v.
Nasah/Hyer, 35 Misc 3d 37, 943 N.Y.S.2d 816 (AT, 2nd & 11th JD, 2012). Mere