Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Taylor, 115 A.D.3d 50 (2014)

Citation: Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Taylor, 115 A.D.3d 50 (2014)
Parent Document: Graham Court Owner's Corp. v. Taylor, 115 A.D.3d 50 (2014)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6107758/graham-court-owners-corp-v-taylor/ ↗

Full Text

1,095 chars

More recently, in Casamento (88 AD3d 345 [2011]), the Second Department held that the same paragraph as the one in the lease at issue here (denominated paragraph 16 in the lease at issue in Casamento) triggered Real Property Law § 234. The Second Department found that this Court’s “reasoning in Bunny Realty is persuasive and perhaps even more forcefully salient to the case before us than it was to the facts presented there” (id. at 357). As Casamento explained: “Unlike the Appellate Term’s interpretation of the lease provision in Bunny Realty, here, paragraph 16 specifically covers an attorney’s fee incurred by a landlord due to the tenant’s default” (id.). Specifically, the landlord in Casamento, like the landlord in this case, was “authorized to cancel the lease due to the tenant’s default and, upon cancellation, may institute a summary proceeding to repossess” (id.). Thus, the Casamento Court stated, “The landlord . . . may recoup the attorney’s fee incurred in the litigation by rerenting, in the same manner as the quoted portion of the lease provision in Bunny Realty” (id.).

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text