ADDITIONAL CASES TCG Group, LLC; Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC d/b/a Laffey Real Estate, U.S. 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp., Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey, Petitioner(s) v. Emmett Laffey; Laffey Fine Homes International, LLC, US 1 Laffey of Williston Park, Inc., Respondent(s); LT-001459-19NA Trial Decision Petitioners, Emmett Laffey; Laffey Fine Homes International, LLC; and US 1 Laffey of Williston Park, Inc., moved by Order to Show Cause to be restored to possession of the southwest corner office, located on the second floor at 55 Northern Boulevard., Greenvale, New York. Petitioners allege that Respondents illegally locked out Petitioners on February 5, 2019. In a separate proceeding, Petitioners, TCG Group, LLC, Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC d/b/a Laffey Real Estate, U.S. 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp., Mark Laffey, and Philip Laffey, commenced a holdover proceeding against Emmett Laffey, Laffey Fine Homes International, LLC, and US 1 Laffey of Williston Park, Inc., by Petition dated March 12, 2019. This court consolidated both matters for joint trial, which was held on May 9, 2019. Holdover Petition The holdover Petition is verified by Mark Laffey. Paragraph 1 of the Petition states, that Mark Laffey: (1) is a member of TCG Group, LLC; (2) owns Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC d/b/a Laffey Real Estate, with his brother Philip Laffey; and (3) is a one-third share owner of the defunct US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Paragraph 2 of the Petition states: “Respondent Emmett is alternatively either a holdover licensee in accordance with RPAPL §713(7) or a discharged employee in accordance with RPAPL §713(11) who either way, wrongfully holds-over and improperly refuses to yield possession of the subject premises. No written or oral lease or written license agreement or employment agreement is known to exist.” Paragraph 3 avers that Emmett Laffey owns Laffey Fine Homes and US 1 Laffey of Williston Park and that these entities have no direct possessory rights with respect to 55 Northern Blvd., Greenvale, NY. Paragraph 4 describes the southwest corner office as 276 square feet located on the second floor of 55 Northern Blvd., Greenvale, NY. Paragraph 6 states that TCG purchased 55 Northern Blvd. in 2002 to serve as headquarters for US 1 Laffey. Paragraph 7 provides that TCG was the holding company for real estate and had no independent operations. The southwest corner office was “not leased to third parties were orally leased to US 1 Laffey.” The southwest office was assigned by US 1 Laffey to Emmett Laffey with the consent of Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey. Emmett Laffey never paid rent. No landlord/tenant relationship existed between Emmett Laffey and TCG. Paragraph 8 states that Emmett Laffey occupied the southwest office for the duration of his employment with US 1 Laffey, which ended in October of 2015. Paragraph 8 references the Corporate Resolution dated December 8, 2015, which states: “The undersigned being the Directors of U.S. 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. d/b/a Laffey Fine Homes (hereinafter, the “Corporation”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 1. At a Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, duly called and held on December 7, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. at which a quorum was present and acted throughout, the Directors adopted the following resolution, which has not been modified or rescinded: RESOLVED, the Corporation hereby removes Emmett Laffey as an Officer of the Corporation. Dated: December 8, 2015 /s/ Mark Laffey By: Mark Laffey, Director /s/ Philip Laffey By: Philip Laffey, Directors” Paragraph 10 pleads in the alternative, that if Emmett Laffey occupied the office as a licensee, the license was terminated. Paragraph 11 states Emmett Laffey commenced litigation in the Nassau Supreme Court which resulted in John Spellman being appointed Receiver for TCG, US 1 Laffey and Laffey Real Estate. John Spellman, as Receiver, leased the premises on behalf of TCG Group to the tenant Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC d/b/a Laffey Real Estate. The license was terminated by the 10 Day Notice to Quit, dated February 22, 2019 sent to Emmett Laffey, Laffey Fine Homes International and US 1 Laffey of Williston Park, Inc. Paragraph 11, references the Order of Nassau County Supreme Justice Stephen A. Bucaria, issued January 12, 2017, which provides a detailed history of the disputes among the Laffey brothers. The January 12, 2017 Order notes that Philip and Mark Laffey commenced an action against Emmett Laffey in the Supreme Court, alleging that Emmett Laffey was improperly competing with one of the jointly owned companies. Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Timothy S. Driscoll granted Emmett Laffey’s motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the business and property of US 1 Laffey Real Estate, Corp., Laffey Associates, LLC, ERealty Title Agency Corp. and 55 Northern Blvd., LLC. Attorney, James Donald Leonard, was appointed receiver on January 28, 2013 to manage and operate the entities. Justice Driscoll denied any injunctive relief to Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey, and refused to award damages. The receiver was discharged in November, 2015. The Order of Justice Bucaria, dated January 12, 2017, further states, Emmett Laffey commenced an action against Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey, alleging illegal transfer of cash, telephone numbers, etc., and $17,000.000. of real estate commissions from US 1 Laffey Real Estate, Corp. to Laffey Fine Homes of New York, owned and controlled by Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey. The Order of Justice Bucaria appointed John Spellman, as Receiver, for the jointlyowned companies 1 Laffey Real Estate, Corp., Laffey Associates, LLC, TCG Group, LLC, ERealty Title Agency and 55 Northern Blvd., LLC, and the defendants’ companies, Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC, Laffey Real Estate, LLC and ETitle Land Services, LLC. Justice Bucaria explained his reasoning for the appointment of a Receiver as follows in his December 8, 2018 Order: “The court found that on December 27, 2016, Philip and Mark Laffey had locked Emmett out of the office in clear violation of the terms of the temporary restraining order. At the headquarters of Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC files were being removed, computers were sequestered, spy cameras were installed covering key employees, security was compromised, managerial employees were being given contradictory directives by the parties, third party vendors were given conflicting directives, banking relationships were being jeopardized, and agents were conflicted with respect to loyalty to the company, all to the detriment of U.S. 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. These acts required the appointment of a temporary receiver to protect the assets of that company. The court determined that the parties had demonstrated that they were incapable of conducting the business of the jointly-held U.S. 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Thus, there was a danger of irreparable loss or waste to the jointly-held company, if a receiver was not appointed. The receiver, John Spellman, Esq., was granted authority to manage and operate the aforesaid companies. On March 10, 2017, the Appellate Division denied Mark and Philip Laffey’s motion for a stay of all proceedings in the action, pending their appeal of the order granting a receiver.” The said Order enjoined Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey from evicting Emmett Laffey: “Plaintiff Emmett Laffey has established that he has been improperly excluded from the Laffey offices by defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Philip and Mark Laffey from evicting him or forcing him out of the Laffey offices located at 55 Northern Blvd. in Greenvale during the pendency of this action is granted.” Testimony of Emmett Laffey Emmett Laffey testified at the trial conducted on May 9, 2019. Emmett Laffey stated he is “a one-third (1/3) owner of the real estate” located at 55 Northern Boulevard, Greenvale, New York. The property was purchased about 15 years ago for $3 million with his two partners. Emmett Laffey exclusively occupied the southwest corner (second floor) since 1998 or 1999. He owned the building with his two partners who formed an LLC. No one else had a key to the office except Emmett Laffey. Emmett Laffey never paid for the space and never shared the space with his two brothers. On February 5, 2019, Emmett Laffey received a phone call from the Central Station Alarm. Emmett Laffey went to the building and observed that the walls had been ripped down. There was a prior summary proceeding over the space that was inconclusive which resulted in Emmett Laffey staying in the office. The office is described as being one office 15 by 15 (transcript p. 11, lines 20-25): “That’s one. It’s one office. It’s about 15 by 15, with one locked door. It was a corner office that no one occupied but myself. And I ran all my businesses out of there. My real estate business, my development business, my other offices. It was just — that was my home base since around the year 2000.” Emmett Laffey described the destruction of his office as follows (transcript p. 12, lines 5-11): “They destroyed — I don’t know if we submitted photos, they destroyed the entire space. They — they ripped open, what’s the word. They broke into my desk. Stole all the contents of my desk. Broke into all my files. Every lock was broken. Everything was compromised. Everything was disheveled, everything. The complete and total disregard for locks, for the alarm and for everything.” (Transcript p. 13, lines 13-17): “Excuse me? Oh, in the back on Exhibit #3 I arrived to the building. The wall was removed. The electric was dangling. Every picture was taken off my wall. My desk was broken into. Every file was broken into. Everything was compromised and everything was out.” Emmett Laffey never received a notice to vacate or was never brought to court regarding summary proceedings. Emmett Laffey averred that he is an owner of TCG Group, LLC (hereinafter referred to as TCG Group), but not an employee. He received no money from TCG. 55 Northern Blvd., LLC was formed to collect rent for the property. Emmett Laffey never received money from 55 Northern Blvd., LLC. His brothers did not tell him to vacate the premises. Emmett Laffey testified that he occupied the southwest office as a tenant and also from the time that TCG Group purchased the building. The 2012 summary proceeding Petition makes reference to the second floor southwest corner office being occupied by Emmett Laffey. He never had an agreement to pay rent with any individual, corporation or LLC. None of the brothers paid rent for their offices. There was no agreement signed concerning the office. Cross Examination of Emmett Laffey Emmett Laffey stated that TCG Group has deed title to the building and each brother is a one-third shareholder. Emmett Laffey stated that all three shareholders made the decision for him to occupy the office (transcript p. 32, lines 11-15): “We all make a decision. When I purchased that building, the three of us purchases [sic] that some fifteen years ago we all made a decision. I occupied the space prior to owning it, that was all our decision. This is over a decade I’ve been there. Almost twenty years, two decades.” Emmett Laffey was removed as officer and director of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. on December 8, 2015. The Corporate Resolution removing Emmett Laffey was signed by Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey. They were paid as independent contractors and received a 1099. Emmett Laffey testified that the website for US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. listed him as the CEO. There was a plaque on the door which listed his name, which was ripped off the door. His business card listed him as CEO. Emmett Laffey ran his real estate business from his office — multiple companies which included US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Emmett Laffey indicated that no shareholder paid rent for an office, and he did not pay for the electric bill for the subject southwest suite. Emmett Laffey was in a severe motorcycle accident in the summer of 2017, whereby he broke 19 bones and was in the hospital for one week. He could not use the second floor in the building because there was no elevator. A summary proceeding was commenced in 2012 against companies Emmett Laffey owned or controlled. These companies occupied offices besides the southwest corner office occupied by Emmett Laffey. There was no final adjudication of the summary proceeding. Emmett Laffey had his attorneys seek a stay of the landlord/tenant action, and have a receiver appointed. John Spellman, as Receiver, never gave a lease to Emmett Laffey for his office. However, a new lease was prepared and sent by John Spellman to Emmett Laffey’s attorney, Mr. Cohen, for comment. Emmett Laffey never saw the lease. However, Emmett Laffey stated that paragraph 35 of the lease makes the lease subject to his tenancy. The landlord signed the Lease by John Spellman, as Receiver, and Mark Laffey, and the tenant signed the Lease by Mark Laffey and John Spellman, as tenant. Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC is listed as the tenant on the lease. The new lease gave the southwest corner to Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC, which is owned by Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey. Mr. Patafio, attorney for TCG Group, made the following comment concerning the lease (transcript p. 55, lines 3-23): “MR. PATAFIO: Yes. John Spellman in the Supreme Court action before Judge Bucaria, was the receiver of multiple companies including TCG Group, 55 Northern Boulevard LLC, Laffey Fine Homes in New York LLC, so he could sign the lease and he did sign the lease, Your Honor, as the receiver for the owner and the receiver for the tenant. THE COURT: And there — MR. PATAFIO: And the letter indicates that he distributed the lease and the date of the letter is months before he actually signed it. You could see it on the lease. THE COURT: All right, so what you’re contending is that the property value is disputed over right now was leased by John Spellman to your client’s company? MR. PATAFIO: Yes. Redirect Examination of Emmett Laffey Paragraph 35 requires a subordination of the lease to the Emmett Laffey tenancy rights. Emmett Laffey considered himself an employee of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. He was paid and received a W-2 from US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Emmett Laffey stated that TCG Group is the owner of the building of which he is a co-owner. Emmett Laffey never received payments, salary or a W-2 or 1099. There was no agreement with his brothers that the southwest corner office was given to him as an incident to employment. Testimony of Mark Laffey Mark Laffey stated that they were originally tenants of 55 Northern Boulevard. TCG Group was formed in 1998 to acquire real estate with his brothers Philip and Emmett. The southwest corner office is part of a larger suite 201. The southwest office does not have access to the common hallway. The primary businesses operated out of the office was US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp., a title company, and mortgage entity. The three brothers were partners in the three companies. All three brothers received a salary from US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp., but stopped due to cash flow. Emmett Laffey appointed himself as CEO of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Emmett Laffey had a plaque on the door designating him as CEO. All three brothers occupied the southwest corner. Eventually, TCG Group purchased the building, and they started renovating. Both Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey moved into different offices. Nobody paid rent. No leases were issued. Emmett Laffey ran US 1 Laffey of Williston Park, Inc., and Laffey Fine Homes International, LLC, out of the southwest corner office without paying rent. Due to the foregoing, an eviction proceeding was commenced in 2012; Emmett Laffey was not named as a respondent. The suit fizzled out. In 2015, Emmett Laffey was terminated as an officer, director and employee of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. After the termination, he had no right to the southwest corner office. Emmett Laffey had no lease. TCG Group was the owner of the building and not Emmett Laffey. Emmet Laffey does not have the unilateral right to possess any property of TCG Group to the exclusion of others. Justice Bucaria appointed John Spellman, as Receiver. John Spellman prepared a lease which was sent to Steve Cohen, attorney for Emmett Laffey. The lease was signed by John Spellman. However, everything was kept on hold pending the order of Justice Bucaria. This stopped any renovations. Later on, John Spellman was dismissed as Receiver. The entire case was dismissed by Justice Bucaria and the injunction was vacated. Since they had a lease, they moved ahead to renovate the southwest office. Emmett Laffey’s possessions were boxed up and put into the basement. Mark Laffey gave the following testimony about Emmett Laffey working at the building (transcript, p. 77, lines 3-15): “Q. How long has it been since Mr. Laffey had been in that space? A. I believe it had been four years since — four to five since he actively worked other than there was an instance in between the lawsuits where then again he started showing up. Be calling the police. The whole nine yards all over again. But he has not actively worked there for years. Q. Mr. Laffey claims he runs all of his companies from that office? A. He runs nothing from that office whatsoever. And even prior to this accident that he had that prohibited him from walking up a flight of stairs he hadn’t been there in months, if not a year.” TCG Group paid the electric for the southwest office. Cross Examination of Mark Laffey Emmett Laffey was terminated by Corporate Resolution on December 7, 2015 as an officer and director of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. Mark Laffey testified that Emmett Laffey was analogous to a secretary being terminated. The secretary would be removed immediately after termination. This thinking was applied to Emmett Laffey’s removal. Mark Laffey testified that the resolution removing Emmett Laffey was dated December 2015, and the Receiver was appointed January 12, 2017. Mark Laffey testified to the following (transcript p. 81, lines 18-25, cont. to p. 82, lines 1-3) : “Q. And your corporate resolution was December 2015, so you waited approximately two years — you had a two-year gap when you could have taken some action to have your brother removed out of that office? Why did you delay? A. I don’t know. I have to go back to my records and see when. Q. And is it your normal practice in your business to allow somebody that you terminated — employment that’s been terminated to sit around for two years before you bring him to get him out of your property? A. No.” Decision Based upon which it finds to be the credible evidence, this court agrees that Emmett Laffey, as a one-third owner of TCG Group, LLC, does not possess a specific right to exclusively occupy, and control the southwest corner office, to the exclusion of the other members of the LLC. In Sealy v. Clifton, LLC, 68 AD3d 846, 890 NYS2d 598 (2nd Dept 2009), the Court held that a member of an LLC has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company: “Since the properties in question are owned by Clifton, the plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for partition in his individual capacity (see Daly v. Messina, 51 A.D.3d 856, 858 N.Y.S.2d 345; Greshin v. Sloane, 138 A.D.2d 569, 570, 526 N.Y.S.2d 150; see also Harvey v. Metz, 271 App.Div. 788, 65 N.Y.S.2d 85; O’Connor v. O’Connor, 249 App.Div. 515, 516, 293 N.Y.S. 64). Further, since the plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue for partition, and the complaint fails to state a cause of action for that relief, the judgment demanded is not one that would affect the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of, real property (see CPLR 6501). The fact that the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint states causes of action for leave to wind up affairs of Clifton and for an accounting of Clifton cannot be a basis for saving the notice of pendency, since ‘a subsequent amended complaint cannot be used to justify an earlier notice of pendency’ (5303 Realty Corp. v. O & Y Equity Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 313, 320, 486 N.Y.S.2d 877, 476 N.E.2d 276; see Makan Land Dev.-Three, LLC v. Prokopov, 42 A.D.3d 439, 839 N.Y.S.2d 787). In any event, a cause of action to wind up the affairs of a limited liability company (see Limited Liability Company Law §703[a]) would not support a notice of pendency, as ‘[a] membership interest in the limited liability company is personal property,’ and ‘[a] member has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company’ (Limited Liability Company Law §601; see Yonaty v. Glauber, 40 A.D.3d 1193, 1195, 834 N.Y.S.2d 744; see also Liffiton v. DiBlasi, 170 A.D.2d 994, 566 N.Y.S.2d 148; General Prop. Corp. v. Diamond, 29 A.D.2d 173, 176, 286 N.Y.S.2d 553). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the only cause of action, which was for partition, and canceled the notice of pendency filed in connection with the property.” Thus, Emmett Laffey’s claims of exclusive right to occupy the southwest corner, as a one-third owner, fail. The credible testimony established that Emmett Laffey was an officer and director of TCG Group, and also alleged to be an employee. The Petition states in paragraphs 7 and 8 that Emmett Laffey was allowed to occupy the southwest corner office by his employer US 1 Laffey Real Estate, Corp., with the consent of the shareholders and officers. The Petition states that Emmett Laffey lost his right to occupy the southwest corner office when his employment was terminated by the Corporate Resolution dated December 8, 2015, removing him as an officer and director of US 1 Laffey Real Estate Corp. The court agrees with Respondents, that a notice to quit is not necessary to evict a terminated employee. See RPAPL Section 713(11) which states: “The person in possession entered into possession as an incident to employment by petitioner, and the time agreed upon for such possession has expired or, if no such time was agreed upon, the employment has been terminated; no notice to quit shall be required in order to maintain the proceeding under this subdivision.” The facts further demonstrate that Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey waited until February 5, 2019, when self-help was used to evict Emmett Laffey. Assuming that Emmett Laffey was an employee who was terminated in December of 2015, a gap of 3 years and 2 months passed before action was taken to remove Emmett Laffey. There was no stay in effect from December 8, 2015 until January 12, 2017, when Justice Bucaria enjoined Philip Laffey and Mark Laffey from evicting Emmett Laffey from the southwest corner. This stay of eviction ended by the June 14, 2018 Order which terminated John Spellman, as Receiver, effective 9:01 a.m., on June 18, 2018. This court agrees with Emmett Laffey, that a tenancy at will was created by the inaction of Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey in delaying any effort to evict Emmett Laffey. Over a year passed with no summary proceeding being instituted to evict. As such, there was no right to evict Emmett Laffey by self-help on February 5, 2019, by violent means. The foregoing principal of law is set forth in 2 N.Y. Landlord & Tenant Incl. Summary Proc., §31:7 (5th ed.), by Hon. Robert F. Dolan: “§31.7. Creation of tenant relationship after termination of employment When an employee remains in possession for a considerable length of time after the employer-employee relationship has been terminated, a tenancy at will may be implied by the courts. Such a tenancy will then require the service of a preliminary notice to quit before the employee-tenant can be dispossessed by a summary proceeding. He can no longer be ejected by force under the common law remedy. He is now a tenant, and protected by the principles of landlord and tenant law.” In Stiles v. Donovan, 100 Misc 2d 1048, 420 NYS2d 453 (Civ Ct, City of NY 1979), the Court provides an excellent discussion of the creation of a tenancy at will, when the employer fails to timely remove the employee: “When an employee remains in possession for a considerable time after the employee-employer relationship has terminated, a tenancy at will is created. The classic case of Kerrains v. People of the State of N.Y., 60 N.Y. 221, advanced this principle in 1875 and the ruling is still valid. Such a tenancy will then require the service of a preliminary notice to quit before the former-employee-tenant can be dispossessed by a summary proceeding. See Rasch, N.Y. Landlord & Tenant 2d Ed. §1072. Though Stiles was no longer an employee of Kolping at the time of his eviction, he was clearly a tenant, and the defendants were obligated to institute a summary proceeding to remove him.” Further, as stated in New York Practice Series – Landlord and Tenant Practice in New York, Finkelstein and Ferrara, (January 2019 Update): “§2:110. Tenancies-at-will Summary Generally, a tenancy-at-will arises whenever a landlord permits another party to possess property without any agreement as to a termination date or rent payment terms.” A 30 day notice to terminate is necessary when a tenancy at will is created by an employee holding over without the employer timely moving to evict the terminated employee. The foregoing is summarized by 13A Carmody-Wait 2d, §90:87: “Also, if an employee remains in possession of a property for a considerable length of time after the relationship has been terminated, a tenancy at will may be implied by the courts, which tenancy may be terminated by a written notice of not less than 30 days given in behalf of the landlord, to the tenant, requiring the tenant to remove from the premises. To create a tenancy at will, however, the postemployment occupancy must be sufficiently long to warrant an inference of consent to the holding different from that of an employee-licensee; how long an occupancy is required is a question to be determined from all the circumstances of the case.” The Petition alleges that only a 10 day notice was served upon Emmett Laffey to remove him as a licensee. This notice is jurisdictionally defective. Emmett Laffey is a tenant at will and is entitled to a 30 day notice. The self-help employed in the case at bar was illegal, and not done in a peaceful manner as demonstrated by the testimony of Emmett Laffey and the pictures introduced into evidence. Even though John Spellman, as Receiver, may have leased the southwest corner office to Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC d/b/a Laffey Real Estate, by lease dated May 1, 2017, this does not change the holding of this court, that at the time in question, Emmett Laffey was a tenant at will entitled to a 30 day notice. Self-help to evict Emmett Laffey was not justified or authorized by the said Lease. Also, the tenancy at will was subject to paragraph 35 of the Lease provided by John Spellman, which states: “35. Subordination The Lease is subject and subordinate to all existing and future mortgages or ground leases or underlying leases which affects the Premises and to all renewals, modifications or replacements thereof without the necessity of any notice or written instruments and Tenant shall, at Landlord request, execute a document to this effect.” The tenancy at will is superior to the Lease provided to Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC. The tenancy at will needed to be terminated in a legal manner before Laffey Fine Homes of New York, LLC, took possession of the southwest corner office. Conclusion 1. Emmett Laffey was a tenant at will due to the inaction of the employer to timely evict him as a terminated employee. 2. Emmett Laffey was entitled to a 30 day termination notice, which was not done in this case. The Notice of Petition and Petition under Index No. LT-001459-19NA is dismissed due to the jurisdictional defects. 3. Emmett Laffey is entitled to possession of the southwest corner office located on the second floor of 55 Northern Blvd., Greenvale, New York. Mark Laffey and Philip Laffey shall immediately provide keys and access to Emmett Laffey to occupy the said office. 4. The foregoing is without prejudice to a proper holdover summary proceeding to evict Emmett Laffey as a tenant at will. So Ordered: Dated: July 25, 2019
