Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Citation
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Parent Document
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2015-02-19
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
- Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Kyle Taylor, 24 N.Y.3d 742 (2015)
Full Text
1,704 charsand second to pay any amounts Tenant owes under this Lease." By
its language, clause D. (3) must be read to assume that, but for
this sequenced payment of attorneys' fees, the tenant would be
entitled to demand credit for the full rent collected by the
landlord for reletting the premises, and to have that credit
applied against any amount the tenant owed under the lease.
Thus, because the amounts received are initially used to pay the
landlord's attorneys' fees, less money remains for reducing the
tenant's outstanding debt. The landlord argues otherwise, but
the tenant is effectively paying the landlord's attorneys' fees
by way of this "relet and collect" lease provision.
We are mindful that Real Property Law § 234 is a
remedial statute intended to "equalize the power of landlords and
tenants" (Duell, 84 NY2d at 783). As this Court stated in Duell
v Condon,
"[t]he overriding purpose of Real Property
Law § 234 was to level the playing field
between landlords and residential tenants,
creating a mutual obligation that provides an
incentive to resolve disputes quickly and
without undue expense. The statute thus
grants to the tenant the same benefit the
lease imposes in favor of the landlord"
(id. at 780). The Court also identified an additional purpose of
section 234 "to discourage landlords from engaging in frivolous
litigation" intended to "harass tenants, particularly tenants
without the resources to resist legal action, into terminating
legal occupancy" (id.). With this understanding, the Court
broadly interpreted Real Property Law § 234, giving expansive