The following named papers numbered 1 to 4 submitted on this Motion & Cross Motion on February 18, 2020 papers numbered Notice of Motion and Supporting Documents 1 Notice of Cross Motion and Supporting Documents 2 Reply Papers to Motion and in Opposition to Cross Motion 3 Reply Papers to Cross Motion 4 The petitioner moves for an order granting a money judgment, in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent, for additional rent for legal fees, sheriff/marshal fees, moving and storage costs, holdover rent/use and occupancy and double rent under the lease, in an amount as determined by the court, but in no event less than $66,349.70. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks the restoration of the proceeding to the calendar for a hearing to determine the reasonable legal fees and costs incurred by the petitioner in the instant action, including the instant motion, in an amount no less than $19,110.70, and also to determine the fair market value of rent/use and occupancy and additional rent, and awarding the petitioner a money judgment against the respondent. The respondent opposes the petitioner’s motion and cross moves for an order, pursuant to General Obligations Law(“GOL”) §7-108, for a money judgment in the amount of $21, 600, with interest from March 2012, representing the respondent’s security deposit of $7,200.00 and $14,400 in punitive damages, together with counsel fees and costs incurred in defending this action. However, in reply, petitioner’s counsel correctly argues, that GOL§7-108 is inapplicable in the instant matter, as it did not go into effect until July 14, 2019. In response, respondent’s counsel argues that although the respondent cannot recover punitive damages under GOL§7-108, the respondent should still be entitled to recover her security deposit of $7,200.00 plus interest from the date of the deposit. The relevant facts are as follows. On March 27, 2012, the parties entered into a lease for the premises, located at 300 Edwards Street, Apt 20W, Roslyn, New York, 11577, for the term of April 10, 2012 to July 31, 2013 with a monthly rent of $2,400.00 (Exhibit B). On June 29, 2016, the parties entered into a lease renewal agreement with an attached rider (Exhibit C). The term of the renewal lease was from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017 with the monthly rent increasing to $2,721.95. The lease renewal provided that it was offered under the same terms and conditions as the original lease agreement. However, the terms and conditions set forth in the lease renewal and the attached rider would prevail. Paragraph 33 of the rider to the renewal lease (Exhibit C) provides that: “In the event that Owner initiates a non-payment action or any type of legal proceeding against Tenant, Tenant shall be liable for the payment of expenses incurred by Landlord, including but not limited to reasonable legal fees, sheriff/marshal fees, moving and storage costs, etc. These costs shall be deemed additional rent.” On August 22, 2017, the petitioner commenced the instant holdover proceeding seeking a final judgment awarding possession of the subject premises to the petitioner; issuance of a warrant of eviction; a judgment in the amount of $2,721.95, with interest from August 1, 2017; a judgment for fair use and occupancy, as determined by the court, plus interest, costs and disbursements, as well as legal fees in the amount of $3,000.00. On July 12, 2018, the respondent filed a verified answer. On October 18, 2018, a trial was conducted before this court. During the trial, the petitioner withdrew its claim for rent and use and occupancy. As a result, the only issue left to be determined by the court was possession of the premises (T. at 34, lines 16-21). At the end of the trial, the court granted a judgment of possession with a stay of the warrant until January 31, 2019. The respondent was also to continue paying the rent due under the renewal lease (T. at 44, lines 19-24 and T. at 45, lines 1-2). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion and the respondent’s cross-motion are granted only to the extent that a hearing shall be conducted on the next court date. At such hearing, the court will consider the amount of rent due and owing, including any additional rent, only in regard to its order after trial. The court will also consider whether the respondent is entitled to the return of her deposit, or any amount thereof, as requested in her cross-motion. So Ordered: Dated: April 28, 2020
