Court Voids Lease Provision Imposing Fees on Tenant in Landlord Default
The panel wrote that “an attorneys' fees provision which provides that the tenant must pay attorneys' fees if it commences an action against the landlord based upon the default of the landlord is unconscionable and unenforceable."
November 15, 2018 at 11:40 AM
4 minute read
Addressing a particular contractual attorney fee issue for the first time, the Appellate Division, First Department has deemed unenforceable a real estate company's lease provision directing the lessee to pay its attorney fees even when the legal action was based on the company's default.
A unanimous First Department panel wrote in its decision that “an attorneys' fees provision which provides that the tenant must pay attorneys' fees if it commences an action against the landlord based upon the default of the landlord is unconscionable and unenforceable as a penalty.”
It further noted that while the First Department “has not previously addressed whether a fee provision in a residential lease is enforceable where it provides for payment of attorneys' fees to a party even when that party is in default, motion courts addressing similar fee provisions have found them unconscionable,” citing Weidman v. Tomaselli.
The underlying legal action arose after Natalie Krodel, a tenant-shareholder in a residential cooperative building owned by Amalgamated Dwellings, was not given shares to another apartment owned by her husband that he had transferred to her in 2012, the panel said.
Krodel had paid a transfer fee, but she claimed the shares transfer did not happen. In turn, she sued Amalgamated for default of its lease agreement with her and for statutory violations, the panel wrote.
Amalgamated answered Krodel's lawsuit and counterclaimed for its attorney fees under paragraph 6(7)(c) of its proprietary lease agreement with Krodel, according to the panel. In 2014, Amalgamated then moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim, and Krodel cross-moved for dismissal of the counterclaim, arguing that paragraph 6(7)(c) was unenforceable, according to the panel.
In its Nov. 8 opinion, the panel, composed of Justices Rosalyn Richter, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Barbara Kapnick, Cynthia Kern and Peter Moulton, laid out the attorney fee provision at issue, from paragraph 6(7)(c). The provision stated, in part, that “if the Lessor shall incur any cost, fee or expense … including reasonable legal fees … in connection with any action or proceeding brought by the Lessee [petitioner] against the Lessor … which is based on an alleged default of the Lessor hereunder … such cost or expense shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor, on demand, as additional rent.”
In addressing the provision's enforceability, the justices said that to deem such a provision valid “would produce an unjust result because it would dissuade aggrieved parties from pursuing litigation and preclude tenant-shareholders from making meaningful decisions about how to vindicate their rights in legitimate instances of landlord default.”
Moreover, while noting Amalgamated's argument that New York courts regularly enforce fee-shifting provisions, the panel pointed out that whether a lease provision amounts to an unenforceable penalty “is a question of law.” The justices further wrote that “parties to a lease may contract for attorneys' fees 'provided [they are] reasonable and not in the nature of penalty or forfeiture,'” quoting 379 Madison Ave. v. Stuyvesant.
“A finding of unconscionability requires 'some showing of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party,'” the panel also said, quoting Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank.
The panel's decision affirmed a 2015 ruling in the case by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Rakower
Elliot Coz, an Anderson Kill attorney in New York, represented appellant Amalgamated in the appeal, according to the decision. He could not be immediately reached for comment.
Joseph Gehring, of Gehring & Satriale, who represented Krodel in the appeal, also could not be immediately reached.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllYou’re Sure You’ve Looked? The Use of Jackson Affidavits and Efforts to Locate Discovery Materials
Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Considerations for Establishing or Denying a Texas Partnership to Invest in Real Estate
- 2In-House AI Adoption Stalls Despite Rising Business Pressures
- 3Texas Asks Trump DOJ to Reject Housing Enforcement
- 4Ideas We Should Borrow: A Legislative Wishlist for NJ Trusts and Estates
- 5Canadian Private Equity Firms Are Eyeing Tech Sector
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250