Section 23E

Citation: Section 23E
Parent Document: BLT Burger DC, LLC v. Norvin 1301 CT, LLC, 86 A.3d 1139 (2014)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2014-03-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2656505/blt-burger-dc-llc-v-norvin-1301-ct-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,444 chars

7
          Wilson, 356 A.2d at 547.
      8
          Latham Land I, LLC v. TGI Friday’s, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 1327, 1332-33
(N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (in light of tenant‟s breach and landlord‟s failed efforts to
find new tenant, sale of property was “appropriate effort to mitigate damages” after
termination of lease; and damages are ascertained by capitalizing at market rate the
average annual base rent for the property with the “lease in place” and calculating
the property‟s diminished value by subtracting the actual sale price without the
lease); accord McGuire v. City of Jersey City, 593 A.2d 309, 315 (N.J. 1991) (“we
think it is more appropriate to consider the landlord‟s sale of the premises as a
mitigation, rather than as an acceptance of surrender,” but sale ended right to
damages for lost future rent because “sale price . . . compensate[d] for the value of
the future rental income”); see also Millikan v. American Spectrum Real Estate
Servs. California, Inc., 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459, 461, 464-65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)
(while “jilted landlord” will nearly always attempt to mitigate damages by making
reasonable efforts to relet property, nothing in “law” or “reason” would “prohibit a
landlord from selling the property to mitigate his loss, provided the trier of fact
finds a sale to be a reasonable means to avoid the further loss of rental revenue”).
      9
          See supra note 8.
                                        13

Other Sections in This Document (499)

Full Text