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

1,723 chars

delay without a showing of prejudice does not constitute laches (Premier Capital, LLC v. Best
Traders, Inc., 88 AD3d 677, 930 N.Y.S.2d 249 [2011]; Dwyer v.
Mazzola, 171 AD2d 726, 727, 567 N.Y.S.2d 281 [1991] ). In determining whether
rent claims are stale, proof of prior litigation between the parties may negate a defense
based on laches (e.g.
Roxborough Apts. Corp. v. Becker, 31 Misc 3d 138[A], 2011 NY Slip Op.
50753[U], 2011 WL 1631913 [App. Term., 1st Dept 2011]; Baumrind v.
Valentine, 2002 NY Slip Op. 50137[U], 2002 WL 704461 [App. Term., 1st Dept
2002] ).

In this case, it is irrefutable that the landlord utterly failed to pay or collect
the rent increases for the period of August 2007-May 2013 for the Respondent
corporation. In addition, no evidence was ever presented to show that the Petitioner ever
commenced any proceeding to recover the rent increases. Under these facts, the
Petitioners have commenced this action to recover part of the rent during Fred Brenner's
tenure as a tenant. In the opinion of this Court, such action is not only in bad faith, but
also "an egregious, protracted delay". According to the Respondent, this litigation would
not have ensued but for his exercise of the option to purchase 432 Keap Street, Brooklyn,
NY. Despite this claim, the Respondent had the absolute right as a matter of law to
exercise the option in accordance with the terms of the underlying lease agreement in
dispute. This Court is of the opinion that this action ensue due to the fact that the other
property was in contract for sale and the Respondent attempted to "interfere" with that
sale by the exercise of the option.

Despite the above facts, the evidence in this case does not support a finding