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

1,367 chars

As the Court held in Duell, section 234 requires the landlord and
tenant be placed on equal footing, a task made easier in this
case by the simple fact that paragraph 15 D. (3) explicitly
provides for attorneys' fees.    Moreover, this rule of
construction is inapplicable here where the parties themselves
have adopted a provision allowing for attorneys' fees.    Having
agreed to this provision, the landlord cannot now complain that
Real Property Law § 234 imposes an unwelcome displacement of the
common law rule.
           Turning to the landlord's alternative argument that the
tenant is not a prevailing party, we conclude that the courts
below properly determined that the tenant did not substantially
breach the lease because the landlord's agent authorized the
tenant's conduct (see Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 415 [1993]
[only a prevailing party, who has achieved "the central relief
sought" is entitled to attorneys' fees]; cf. Ram I, LLC v Stuart,
248 AD2d 255, 256 [1st Dept 1998] [attorneys' fees denied where
outcome of "litigation was not substantially favorable to either
side"]).   Since the tenant succeeded in his defense against the
landlord's holdover proceeding, he is entitled to fees under Real
Property Law § 234.
           Accordingly, the order should be affirmed, with costs,
and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text