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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2780292/graham-court-owners-corp-v-kyle-taylor/ ↗

Full Text

1,488 chars

tenant's right to attorneys' fees.    In contrast, acceptance of
the landlord's interpretation of Real Property Law § 234 and
clause D. (3) requires that we approve language in this lease
whereby the landlord is allowed to recover attorneys' fees that
result from the tenant's breach, while at the same time denying
the tenant a similar right of recovery, merely because the
landlord will recoup the fees by reletting the premises.    This
construction of the statute and the lease agreement would once
again favor the landlord, in contravention of the legislative
intent to place the parties on an equal footing (see Duell, 84
NY2d at 783).
          Moreover, this interpretation permits a landlord to
escape the statute's coverage by recharacterizing the landlord's
attorneys' fees as costs incurred by reletting, contracting the
statute's coverage by limiting its scope.   It also encourages
creative ways to structure recovery of fees so as to appear
attenuated from the tenant's breach.   As the Appellate Division
recognized, this would "reward 'artful draftsmanship' and
undermine the salutary purpose of section 234" (Graham Ct.
Owner's Corp., 115 AD3d at 59, quoting Casamento v Juaregui, 88
AD3d 345, 357 [2d Dept 2011], quoting Bunny Realty v Miller, 180
AD2d 460, 463 [1st Dept 1992]).
          The landlord argues, like the Appellate Division
dissent, that we must interpret Real Property Law § 234 narrowly
because it is in derogation of the common law rule that disfavors

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text