DECISION/ORDER AFTER INQUEST On July 24, 2023, the Court conducted an inquest as to Plaintiff’s damages in this action, the issue of liability having been previously determined by the Decision and Order of the Honorable Lucy Billings, J.S.C. dated May 16, 2022. The sole witness is Anila Vasireddy, member of Plaintiff Aksai Holdings LLC. Defendants Steve P. Kramer and Tamika P. Kramer failed to appear in this action or for the inquest. For this inquest, this Court reviewed the following exhibits, submitted by Plaintiff: Exhibit 1. Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement of Plaintiff LLC Exhibit 2. Certified Deed to Premises (Condominium Unit) Exhibit 3. Original Lease with latest Renewal Addendum Exhibit 4. E-mail about monthly cable and internet charges Exhibit 5. Ledger of monies due from Defendants (with corrections) Exhibit 6. Breakdown of Repairs with Supporting Documents Exhibit 7. Legal Invoices from Housing Court Exhibit 8. Redacted Excerpts of Retainer Agreement for this action The Court has reviewed and considered all exhibits admitted into evidence and now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT Defendants entered into possession of the Premises (779 Riverside Drive, Unit 35B, New York, New York 10032), an apartment in a condominium, pursuant to a written lease between the parties. The original lease commenced on June 1, 2017 and expired on May 31, 2018. Thereafter, the parties entered into multiple renewal leases, most recently one which expired on May 30, 2021. In the leases, Defendants agreed to pay $2,550 per month in rent. Defendants vacated the Premises on or about June 10, 2021. Defendants did not pay rent and/or use and occupancy starting in November 2020. Starting in November 2020, the condominium also required that it be paid $60 per month for internet and cable. Paragraph 20(a)(i) of the Lease required that the tenants pay for repairs which they have caused by their negligence and/or “misuse” of the apartment and/or by their visitors’ negligence or “misuse” thereof. Upon Defendants’ vacating the Premises, Plaintiff made repairs to the Premises, which repairs were necessary because of the apartment’s misuse by and/or the negligence of Defendants and/or their visitors. Specifically, Defendants left belongings which had to be disposed of, as well as odor, soot, and burn marks from smoking in the apartment. Those repairs cost $2,693.05. Paragraph 20(a)(iv) of the Lease requires that the tenants pay legal fees and costs if counsel is engaged because of the tenants’ default. To date, Plaintiff has spent $2,765.26 on legal fees and costs to bring Defendants to housing court, with the fees for this action not yet determined. Defendants were credited for their security deposit of $5,100.00. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff seeks recovery from the defendant under two separate causes of action. Specifically, Plaintiff bring claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Breach of Contract A plaintiff alleging breach of contract must demonstrate “the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach.” Canzona v. Atanasio, 118 A.D.3d 837, 838 (2nd Dep’t 2014). Here, the unrebutted evidence submitted at the inquest establishes that the parties entered into a series of leases, the most recent of which ran from June 1, 2020 through May 30, 2021 and provided for rent to be paid at $2,550 per month. As stated above, Paragraph 20(a)(i) of the Lease required that the tenants pay for repairs which they have caused by their negligence and/or “misuse” of the apartment and/or by their visitors’ negligence or “misuse” thereof. Plaintiffs performed under the lease by allowing Defendants to reside in the Premises through and slightly beyond the end of their lease term (through June 10, 2021). Defendants breached the lease by not paying their monthly rent and/or use and occupancy, as well as $60 month in cable and internet charges required by the condominium. Defendants also did not pay to repair the damages they caused, specifically soot, burn marks, and cigarette odor from smoking in the apartment and the cost of removing Defendants’ belongings from the Premises. Therefore, Plaintiff has been damaged in these amounts: $2,550 per month in rent and use and occupancy for seven months (November 2020-May 2021, as well as 1/3 of June 2021) = $18,700.00 Internet and cable charges for six months = $ 360.00 Repair costs = $2,693.05 Legal fees for housing court = $2,765.26 Minus security deposit = ($5,100.00) TOTAL (excluding legal fees, costs, and interest in this action) = $19,418.31 As discussed above, Paragraph 20(a)(iv) of the Lease requires that the tenants pay legal fees and costs if counsel is engaged because of the tenants’ default. Plaintiff expended $2,765.26 in legal fees in a housing court proceeding to evict Defendants. Also, Plaintiff’s retainer agreement with Law Office of Matthew S. Porges, which is handling this action, provides for legal fees of 25 percent of the amount recovered. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to at least 25 percent of what the judgment will be, if not also the fees expended in housing court, in legal fees. Unjust Enrichment A plaintiff alleging unjust enrichment must establish that the defendant was “enriched, at the plaintiff’s expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendants to retain what is sought to be recovered”. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., 120 AD3d 1178. 1180 (2nd Dep’t 2014). An action for unjust enrichment is also known “as an action in implied contract, [but] the name is something of a misnomer because it is not an action founded on contract at all; it is an obligation which the law creates in the absence of agreement when one party possesses money that in equity and good conscience he [or she] ought not to retain and that belongs to another”. Goldman v. Simon Prop. Group. Inc., 58 AD3d 208, 220 (2nd Dep’t 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this case, the unrebutted evidence submitted at inquest establishes that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain the sums addressed above, as Plaintiff provided Defendants with a place to live through June 10, 2021. The damages are the same as discussed above for the breach of contract claim. Conclusion Upon consideration of the evidence, this Court awards to Plaintiff Aksai Holdings LLC damages against Defendant Steven P. Kramer and Defendant Tamika K. Kramer in the amount of $19,418.31 plus $4,854.58 in reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and disbursements. Now, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Aksai Holdings LLC damages against Defendant Steven P. Kramer and Defendant Tamika K. Kramer in the amount of $19,418.31 plus $4,854.58 in reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, and disbursements, and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry upon the defendant within 20 days of entry. This constitutes is the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: July 28, 2023
