Realty Law Digest
Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses "39-50 24th St. Realty v. Ol'Bridge Café Inc," where tenant violated the lease for operating an unlicensed catering facility and created a public hazard for holding an large event during the pandemic, and "Bd. of Managers, 80th at Mad. Condo," where questions of fact remained if the board acted arbitrarily in refusing to approve exterior signage.
March 30, 2021 at 01:33 PM
15 minute read
Commercial Landlord-Tenant—Tenant Violated lease by Operating Unlicensed Catering Facility and Created a Public or Private Nuisance—Events With Large Gatherings During Pandemic Created Public Health Hazard—Tenant Also Defaulted on Rent Obligation—Defense Witness Testified There Was No Alcohol Served or Brought in to Weddings, Engagement Parties or Super Bowl Parties Held at the Premises—Defendant Must Have Thought That the Judge "Just fell of the proverbial turnip truck"
A landlord and a tenant entered into a lease for a five-year term. The permitted use was for "a restaurant." The tenant, in addition to paying a monthly rent of $4,000.00, was to be responsible for real estate taxes, late fees "in the amount of 10 percent of the monthly rent," as well as legal fees if the tenant defaulted and the landlord was required to commence or defend an action or proceeding resulting from the default.
The landlord alleged that the tenant had utilized the premises as an event space within which to host various parties and large gatherings" in violation of the lease use provision, which provided for restaurant use. The landlord asserted that the tenant's use was "tantamount to an unauthorized sublet." The landlord further alleged that the tenant failed to comply with legal requirements applicable to its use, that the tenant failed to vacate after expiration of deadlines set forth in predicate notices and that the tenant had failed to cure the lease violations.
The landlord had commenced a summary eviction holdover proceeding. The tenant asserted numerous affirmative defenses which were "mainly devoid of facts and based upon alleged procedural deficiencies." At trial, the court found that the tenant's alleged improper conduct continued post-petition. The court described such activities as "a continuing pattern of practice."
This content has been archived.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 AllUnit Owners Sued Board for Failure To Maintain Adequate Fire Insurance: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Judgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Delaware Supreme Court Agrees Insurance Dispute Can Be Retried
- 2New Strategies For Estate, Legacy Planning
- 3Leaning Into ‘Core’ Strengths, Jenner’s Revenue Climbs 17%, Profits Soar 23%
- 4Frito Lays Could Face Liability for Customer's Grocery Store Fall Over Pallet Guard, Judge Rules
- 5Holland & Knight Expands Corporate Practice in Texas With Former Greenberg Traurig Partner
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