Eujoy Realty Corp., Respondent,v.Van Wagner Communications, LLC, Appellant.

Brief

N.Y.October 8, 2013

To be Argued by: JOHN C. SCHNAUFER Time Requested: 30 Minutes Qlunrt uf l\ppralli ~tatr nf Nrm tjnrk EUJOY REALTY CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, . against- VAN WAGNER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Of Counsel: SCHNAUFER & METIS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent 280 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Hartsdale, New York 10530 (914) 288-9700 JOHN C. SCHNAUFER PETER METIS New York County Clerk's Index No. 116655/07 Appeal Press, LLC - (914) 761-3600 (212) 267-6602 (16141) COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ________________ c _____________________________________________ )( EUJOY REALTY CORP., Plaintiff-Respondent, - against- PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S RULE 500.1(f) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT v AI'{ WAGNER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, --------------------------------------------------------------)( Plaintiff-Respondent has no parent, subsidiary or affiliate business entities. Dated: Hartsdale, New York March 8, 2013 SCHNAUFER & METIS, LLP By:~" C .dr~." L J®N C. SCHNAUFER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent 280 North Central Avenue Suite 200 Hartsdale, New York 10530 (914) 288-9700 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... .iii-v PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................... 5 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................... 7 The Lease ...................................................................................................... 7 Tenant's Termination of the Lease ................................................................. 8 The Schaps Aff. ..................................................................................... 10 ARGUMENT ................................................................................. II POINT I - NO NEW THEORY OF RECOVERY WAS ADVANCED BY LANDLORD BEFORE THE MOTION COURT .................................................................................... I1 The Complaint and CPLR 3014 ................................................................... 12 Landlord's Moving Papers before the Motion Court .................................. 13 Tenant Was Not Prejudiced or Surprised ................................................ 15 POINT II - TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE ANNUAL BASIC RENT FOR 2007, NOTWITHSTANDING TERMINATION OF THE SIGN LEASE ON JANUARY 8, 2007 ............................................... 16 The Annual Rent for 2007 Was Due on January 1.. .................................... 16 Rent Payable in Advance is Not Subject to Apportionment. ...................... 18 Tenants Misinterpretation of the Lease ............................................... 19 Landlord's Alleged WindfalL ................................................................. .2 I POINT III - TENANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER ARTICLE 43 OF THE LEASE BEFORE LANDLORD COULD SUE FOR THE RENT AND THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE DID NOT EXTINGUISH LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO SUE FOR THE 2007 RENT ..................................................................... 23 Article 43 of the Lease ............................................................................. 23 The Landlord's Right to Sue for the 2007 Rent... ......................................... 23 Articles 18 and 19 of the Lease ............................................................... 25 POINT IV - GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW §7-\O3 DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ANNUAL INSTALLMENT OF RENT WHICH THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY IN ADVANCE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE yEAR ........................ 26 General Obligations Law §7-103 ............................................................ 26 The Provisions ofthe Lease Prevail.. ........................................................ 27 POINT V - TENANT'S POSITION ON THE NO WAIVER CLAUSE OF THE LEASE IS INCORRECT ....................................... 29 Article 25 is Applicable to Events Which Relate to the Lease .................... 32 POINT VI - TENANT CAN NEITHER FACTUALLY NOR AS A MATTER OF LAW ESTABLISH AN ORAL AGREEMENT WHICH MODIFIES OR AMENDS THE LEASE OR CREATES AN ESTOPPEL.. ......................................... .33 Executory Agreements Must Be in Writing ............................................. .34 There Are No Issues of Fact ............................................................... .38 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 38 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aronson v. Markulin, 39 Misc.2d 273 (Civ. Ct., Bx. Co. 1963) ...................... 24 Barkley v. McCue, 25 Misc. 738 (App. Tr., 1 st Dep't 1899) ........................... 19 Bernstein v. Englander, 25 N.Y.S.2d 319 (App. Tr., 1 st Dep't 1941) ................ 19 Bottlers' Seal Co. v. Rainey, 225 N.Y. 369 (1919) .............................................. 17 Cheesebough v. Lieber, 18 Misc. 459 (App. Tr., 1st Dep't 1896) ...................... 19 Dennis & Jimmy's Food Corp. v. Milton Company, 99 A.D.2d 477 (2d Dep't 1984), affd 62 N.Y.2d 613 (1984) ...................................... .30, 31 Estate of Ryan, 294 N.Y. 85 (1945) ....................................................................... 17 Excel Graphics Technologies. Inc. v. CHG/AGSCB 75 Ninth Avenue LLC, 1 A.D.3d 65 W Dep't 2003); Iv. to app. dismissed, 2 N.Y.2d 794 (2004) ....... 30,31 Geraci v. Jenrette, 41 N.Y.2d 660 (1977) ................................................................ 24 Giles v. Comstock, 4 N.Y. 270 (1850) ................................................................ 17 Goldsmith v. Schroeder, 93 A.D. 206 (1 st Dep't 1904) .................................... 18 Goldstein v. Stadler's Shoes. Inc., 159 Misc. 804 (App. Tr., 1 st Dep't 1936) ....................................................................................... 19 Hampton v. F1esser, 133 Misc. 705, 706 (App. Tr., 1 st Dep't 1929) .................. 25 Intell157 West 5ih Street Realty, LLC v. Block, 2002 WL 243391 (App. Tr., 1st Dep't 2002) .................................................................... 19 J.C. Penney Company. Inc. v. 1700 Broadway Company, 104 Misc.2d 787 (Sp. Ct., NY Co. 1980) ....................................................................... 22 Jefuau1 Garage Corp. v. Presbyterian Hospital in City of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 442 (1984) ................................................................... 30,31 iii Joseph P. Day Realty Com. v. Jeffrey Lawrence Associates, Inc. 270 A.D.2d 140 (l51 Dep't 2000) .................................................... 36,37,38 Kahn v. Simons, 25 Misc. 737 (App. Tr., 1st Dept 1899) .............................. .19 Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Morse Shoe Co., 218 A.D.2d 624 (lst Dep't 1995) .............................................................................. 16 Madison Avenue Leasehold, LLC v. Madison Bentley Associates LLC, 8 N.Y.3d 59 (2006) .................................................................................................. 17 Nassau Beekman, LLC v. Ann/Nassau Realty, LLC, -=~.A.D.3d_, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00566, 2013 WL 362816 (l st Dep't 1/31/13) ........................................................................ 36,38 Petrelli v. Kagel, 37 Misc.2d 246 (Civ. Ct., Bx. Co. 1962) ............................ 24 Pollack v. lA. Green Construction Corp., 40 A.D.2d 996 (2d Dep't 1972), affd 32 N.Y.2d 720 (1973) ............................................ 31 Reiss v. Financial Performance Corporation, 97 N.Y.2d 195 (2001) ................ 20 Renali Realty Group 3, LLC v. Robbins MBW Corp., 259 A.D.2d 682 (2d Dep't 1999) ............................................................................. 31 Rose v. Spa Realty Associates, 42 N.Y.2d 338 (1977) ................................. 38 Smathers v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 199 A.D. 368 (1St Dep't 1922); affd 233 N.Y.617 (1922) ............................................................ 18 Sperry v. Miller, 8 N.Y.336 (1854) ............................................................ 19,24 34 West 34th Street Corporation v. Nehema Realty Corp., 7 Misc.2d 532 [Sp. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1956]. ............................................................................ 17,27,28 1251 Americas Associates II, LoP. v. Rock 49th Rest. Corp., 13 Misc.3d 142 (A), 2006 WL 3437566, (App. Tr., lSI Dep't 2006) ................. 19 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 506 (1979) ....................... 24 tV Werner v. Padula, 49 A.D. 135, 138 (1 st Dep't 1900), affd 167 N.Y. 611 (1901) ............................................................................... 17,19 STATUTES CPLR 3014 .............................................................................................................. 13 General Obligations Law §5-1103 ........................................................ 35 General Obligations Law §7-103(1) ........................................................ 4,5,26,2S,29 General Obligations Law §15-301, ~~1, 3 ................................................... 35 Real Property Law §227 ..................................................................... 17 OTHER AUTHORITY Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary ........................................................ 21 Friedman on Leases, 4th Ed., Vol. I, §93, p. 534 ....................................... IS NYU, 7/30109, p. 4, Col. 4, "What is Rent For? Clearing Up Common Misapprehensions", Thomas C. Lambert, Steven Shackman ............................. IS, 19 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant, Summary Proceedings, §26.36, 4th ed ......................................................................... 19 v