3rd & 60th Assoc. Sub v. Zavolunov
| Docket Number | 893,Index No. 152736/22 Case No. 2023-03208 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 NY Slip Op 00160 |
| Parties | 3rd and 60th Associates Sub LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Zavolunov et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins, LLP, New York (Robert S. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobs P.C., New York (Adam B. Sherman of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, Scarpulla, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Order Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.) entered June 12, 2023, which granted defendants' motion under CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff-landlord and nonparty tenant entered into a lease for commercial property in March 2017 for tenant's use of the premises as a restaurant. Contemporaneously, defendants executed a lease guaranty which guaranteed tenant's payment obligations under the lease. The lease contained a liquidated damages provision which provided that upon plaintiff's re-entry, plaintiff would be permitted, but not obligated, to re-let the premises as tenant's agent in plaintiff's name. Tenant would be liable for the monthly deficiency between the rent reserved under the lease and the net amounts collected by plaintiff until the end of the stated lease term. Liquidated damages would be due and payable monthly, as determined. The liquidated damages provision and defendants' guaranty of them would survive the lease's termination. The lease did not contain an acceleration clause.
Plaintiff commenced a nonpayment proceeding in October 2019 (October 2019 Action) alleging that tenant failed to pay rent for the months of August 2019 through October 2019 and seeking amounts due for unpaid rent under the lease. By stipulation dated February 21, 2020 (the Stipulation), plaintiff and tenant agreed to resolve the nonpayment proceeding by converting the action to a holdover proceeding. Tenant consented to a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction, which were stayed on the conditions that tenant pay rent arrears and timely pay monthly use and occupancy from March 1, 2020 through August 1, 2020, as provided in the lease as if the lease had not expired due to the issuance of the warrant.
Tenant failed to tender the use and occupancy payment on March 1 2020. Plaintiff sent tenant a letter giving notice of its default and requiring it to cure the default by March 9 2020. Tenant failed to cure the March default and made no additional use and occupancy payments in the following months. Tenant vacated and surrendered the premises to plaintiff on September 28, 2020.
In August 2020, plaintiff filed a plenary action against tenant and defendants in Supreme Court to recover rents accrued from March 1, 2020 through August 1, 2020 (Action 1). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 22-1005 (the Guaranty Law) precluded enforcement of the guaranty. The court granted defendants' motion by order dated April 19, 2021. We affirmed (3rd & 60th Assoc. Sub LLC v Third Ave. M & I, LLC, 199 A.D.3d 601 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 912 [2022]).
Plaintiff commenced the present action against defendants by summons and complaint dated March 31, 2022 seeking liquidated damages under the lease and guaranty from July 1, 2021 to March 30, 2022, liquidated damages under the same due from April 1, 2022 through the lease expiration date, and all costs, expenses, interest, and attorneys' fees incurred in relation to this action and the October 2019 Action. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata, defendants' liability under the guaranty was limited to plaintiff's remedies under the Stipulation, and the Guaranty Law bars enforcement of the guaranty. By order dated June 12, 2023, Supreme Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata.
The motion court should not have dismissed the complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata. "[A] claim arising subsequent to a prior action... is not barred by res judicata even if the new claim is premised on facts representing a continuance of the same course of conduct" (UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., 159 A.D.3d 512, 514 [1st Dept 2018] [internal brackets omitted], lv dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1080 [2018]). The claims in this case are not barred by res judicata because plaintiff is seeking to recover amounts due under the guaranty that allegedly became due subsequent to the entry of the order in Action 1 (see e.g. 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times Sq. Photo Inc., 194 A.D.3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2021], appeal dismissed, 37 N.Y.3d 1040 [2021]).
Additionally we find that the Stipulation did not vitiate tenant's and defendants' liability for liquidated damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial