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

1,540 chars

attorneys' fees for prevailing parties.    In support, the landlord
relies on this Court's decision in Gottlieb v Kenneth D. Laub &
Co., Inc. (82 NY2d 457, 464 [1993]).     We disagree that Gottlieb
requires an outcome in favor of the landlord.
          The Court in Gottlieb held that Labor Law § 198 did not
authorize recovery of attorneys' fees for a common law
contractual claim.    In reaching this conclusion, the Court held
that the statute's terms and cumulative legislative history
evinced an intent to limit its application to "actions for wage
claims founded on the substantive provisions of Labor Law article
6" (id. at 465).     Then, only two years after Gottlieb, this Court
interpreted Real Property Law § 234 broadly in Duell, citing the
statutory language, purpose and history, for example, in support
of extending the statute's coverage to include as "tenants"
nonsignatories to the lease (84 NY2d at 779-782).    Notably the
Court made no mention of Gottlieb, presumably because, unlike
Labor Law § 198, the statutory language and the legislative
history of Real Property Law § 234 demonstrate an intent to
abrogate the common law.    Thus, Gottlieb does not constrain us
from recognizing the tenant's implied right to attorneys' fees
based on the language in the lease.
          The landlord fares no better by pointing to a statutory
construction rule that limits judicial expansion or remedial
statute to the "fairly expressed provisions of the act"
(McKinney's Cons Laws of NY. Statutes Law § 321, Comment at 492).

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text