Commercial Landlord-Tenant; Diplomatic Immunity Defense: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses the commercial landlord-tenant case, "101-115 W. 116th St. Corp. v. Consulate Gen. of the Republic of Senegal," of interest "because, inter alia, of the number of foreign embassies and consulates located in New York City and because of its elucidation of the law involving lawsuits against foreign governments, their related entities, liquidated damages, holdover rent, late fees and restoration costs.
April 25, 2023 at 12:43 PM
17 minute read
Commercial Landlord-Tenant—Foreign Consulate—Diplomatic Immunity Defense Rejected—Defendant Waived, by Implication, Sovereign Immunity by Agreeing In the Lease That All Actions or Proceedings Arising Out of the Lease Shall Be Litigated Only In State or Federal Courts Located in New York City—Leasing Property Constitutes Commercial Activity Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act—Court Granted Landlord's Motion for Summary Judgment on Fixed Annual Rent and Additional Rent Only as to Liability—Late Fee Provision Upheld—It Was Not an Unenforceable 'Penalty'—Court Upheld Holdover Use and Occupancy Provision, but Granted Summary Judgment as to Liability Only Since Rent Provision Was Ambiguous—Restoration Cost Denied—Insufficient Evidence—Argument Based on 'Information and Belief' Insufficient To Meet Evidentiary Burden on Motion for Summary Judgment
This decision involved an alleged breach of a commercial lease. A landlord sought summary judgment against the defendant "Consulate General of the Republic of Senegal" (Consulate General) (defendant). The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted the landlord's summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability for unpaid "fixed annual rent," "additional rent" and holdover "use and occupancy" (U&O), together with late fees and interest.
The court denied the landlord's motion with respect to the landlord's claim for reasonable attorney fees and the balance of the landlord's motion. The legal fee issue will "be determined at the time of trial or other disposition of this action…." The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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