BP 399 PARK AVENUE LLC, plf-ap, v. PRET 399 PARK, INC. def-res

4018-4019. BP 399 PARK AVENUE LLC, plf-ap, v. PRET 399 PARK, INC. def-res — Cozen O'Conner, New York (Menachem J. Kastner of counsel), for ap — Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York (Howard J. Rubin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action as against defendant Pret A Manger (USA), Limited (Pret Parent), and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on those causes of action and dismissing defendants' affirmative defenses, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants' motion, and to grant plaintiff's motion as to the first, third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses and so much of the second affirmative defense as alleges waiver, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4018-4019. BP 399 PARK AVENUE LLC, plf-ap, v. PRET 399 PARK, INC. def-res — Cozen O’Conner, New York (Menachem J. Kastner of counsel), for ap — Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York (Howard J. Rubin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action as against defendant Pret A Manger (USA), Limited (Pret Parent), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on those causes of action and dismissing defendants’ affirmative defenses, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants’ motion, and to grant plaintiff’s motion as to the first, third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses and so much of the second affirmative defense as alleges waiver, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff is the successor in interest to nonparty Citibank N.A., as landlord under a lease with defendant Pret 399 Park, Inc. (Pret 399) — a wholly owned subsidiary of Pret Parent — as tenant. Plaintiff is correct that Pret Parent was Pret 399′s assignee by operation of law (see Mann v. Munch Brewery, 225 NY 189, 193 [1919]). Defendants did not dispute that Pret Parent — as opposed to Pret 399 — was the entity operating a caf at the premises or that Pret Parent paid the rent (see id.). However, once Pret Parent surrendered possession of the premises, the privity of estate between it and plaintiff ceased to exist, and it no longer had to pay rent (see id. at 195). Plaintiff seeks rent only for the period after defendants surrendered possession. Thus, Pret Parent’s liability depends on whether plaintiff can succeed on a theory of piercing the corporate veil of Pret 399.

BP 399 PARK AVENUE LLC, plf-ap, v. PRET 399 PARK, INC. def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal