Brighton Leasing Corp. v. Brighton Realty Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 March 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 519057/18,2020–01785
• Citation: 192 A.D.3d 749,144 N.Y.S.3d 98
• Parties: BRIGHTON LEASING CORP., appellant, v. BRIGHTON REALTY CORP., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 749
144 N.Y.S.3d 98

BRIGHTON LEASING CORP., appellant,
v.
BRIGHTON REALTY CORP., respondent.

2020–01785
Index No. 519057/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—December 8, 2020
March 10, 2021

144 N.Y.S.3d 99

Michael Konopka & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.

The Price Firm LLC, New York, N.Y. (Joshua C. Price and Jennifer Milosavljevic of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and related injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), dated February 13, 2020. The order granted the defendant's motion to vacate any stays that were in place, for summary judgment on its counterclaims, and to compel the plaintiff's counsel to release to it rent money being held in escrow.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion to vacate any stays that were in place, for summary judgment on its counterclaims, and to compel the plaintiff's counsel to release to it rent money being held in escrow, is denied.

In September 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for declaratory and related injunctive relief, alleging that, pursuant to the parties' lease and lease extension agreements, it had leased from the defendant certain commercial property in Brooklyn through October 31, 2028. The defendant denied that the parties

144 N.Y.S.3d 100

had extended the term of the lease through October 31, 2028, and, in its verified answer, asserted, among other things, a counterclaim for a judgment declaring that the parties' lease expired on September 30, 2018, and has not been extended.

The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 6301 for a preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining the defendant from (1) interfering with its rights to occupy and sublet the premises, (2) contacting the plaintiff's subtenants with respect to the plaintiff, its principals, or their use and occupancy of the premises, and (3) commencing any eviction proceedings or other proceedings against the plaintiff or its subtenants involving their use and occupancy of the premises. Pending the determination of the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order, partially on consent, restraining the defendant from engaging in the previously mentioned acts. On the parties'...