The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER. AMENDED DECISION+ORDER ON MOTION Oral argument took place for the above captioned motion on July 28, 2022 with Robert J. Howard appearing for Plaintiff and Alexander Rabinowitz appearing for Defendant Varick 121 Varick Street, Corp. (“Varick”). Upon the foregoing documents and oral argument, it is decided and ordered as follows. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff is a commercial tenant who runs a luxury home specialty store located at 121 Varick Street (NYSCEF Doc. 1). Plaintiff and Varick executed a commercial lease (the “Lease”) in January of 2019 to utilize a portion of the ground floor retail space (the “Premises”) as an “upscale furniture showroom.” (NYSCEF Doc. 20). 121 Varick Street (the “Building”) sits atop the subway under Varick Street and is at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel (“NYSCEF Doc. 33). It also is located in what has historically been known as New York’s “printing district” and the Building has a history of housing printing presses ever since seven printing companies formed the cooperative that is Varick (Id.). Each unit in the building also has a certificate of occupancy for manufacturing. (Id. at 65). Plaintiff took possession of the leased premises in October 2019 (NYSCEF Doc. 12). The Lease contains a clause that states that so long as Tenant is not in default, then “Tenant may peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises without hinderance or molestation by Landlord or any person lawfully claiming by, through or under Landlord…”. (NYSCEF Doc. 20). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Irene David Realty, Inc. (“Realty”) owns the space above the unit leased by Plaintiff and subleases that space to Defendant Positive Print Litho Offset, Inc. (“Print”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 at
10-12). Plaintiff alleges that Varick and Realty allowed Print to move a printing press to be operated all day during business hours Monday through Friday directly above Plaintiff’s showroom (Id. at 19). Plaintiff alleges that the printing press and cutting machine caused continuous noises which made it impossible for Plaintiff to use its leased premises for its intended purposes, resulting in lost business (Id. at
