Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)

Citation: Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)
Parent Document: Rochdale Vil., Inc. v. Hallerdin-Grant, 2024 NY Slip Op 24192 (2024)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10004254/rochdale-vil-inc-v-hallerdin-grant/ ↗

Full Text

998 chars

Finally, to the extent Petitioner argues it may maintain a holdover under RPAPL 711(1) based on Respondent's failure to pay monthly maintenance and surcharges, this position is precluded by the plain language of the parties' lease. It is axiomatic that a "holdover proceeding based upon a landlord's termination of a lease may only be maintained where there is a conditional limitation in the lease providing for its early termination" (Fourth Hous. Co., Inc. v Bowers, 53 Misc 3d 43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016], citing Perrotta v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 98 AD2d 1 [4th Dept 1983]). Here, the sole conditional limitation clause in the parties' occupancy agreement is in Section 20, which authorizes early termination by lapse of time for certain breaches upon service of a three-day notice (see NYSCEF 12 at 9). However, the conditional limitation clause states that it cannot be based on a default in the "[c]ooperator's agreement to pay rent" (id.).[FN1]

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text