La Lanterna, Inc. v. Fareri Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04334. |
| Citation | 831 N.Y.S.2d 190,37 A.D.3d 420,2007 NY Slip Op 01084 |
| Parties | LA LANTERNA, INC., Respondent, v. FARERI ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment determining that the defendant is not barred from asserting a counterclaim for any alleged breach of the lease extension due to the plaintiff's failure to construct a parking lot or patio based on the defendant's and its predecessor's acceptance of rent, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's fourth cause of action, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In June 1997 SDR IV Realty, Inc. (hereinafter SDR), as landlord, and La Lanterna, Inc. (hereinafter La Lanterna), as tenant, entered into a 12-year commercial lease (hereinafter the lease) for premises located in Armonk. Various disputes between the parties resulted in SDR's attempt to terminate the lease for La Lanterna's alleged breach of it. Those disputes were seemingly resolved in June 2002 when the parties entered into a stipulation in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. As part of that stipulation, La Lanterna and SDR agreed to an extension of the lease for an additional seven years, from 2009 through 2016 (hereinafter the lease extension). The parties also agreed that a new parking lot would be built, but a dispute arose as to which party was responsible for its construction. In May 2005 SDR sold the premises to the defendant, Fareri Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter Fareri).
In August 2005, after serving a notice to cure, Fareri purported to terminate the lease and the lease extension based on La Lanterna's alleged breach of its obligation to construct the parking lot. La Lanterna commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Fareri could not assert a cause of action that La Lanterna was in breach of the lease extension or lease because Fareri and SDR knew of La Lanterna's alleged failure to construct the parking lot, but nevertheless accepted rent payments.
Fareri asserted four counterclaims, essentially seeking declarations that the lease and/or the lease extension were terminated. Fareri also sought damages. Eventually, Fareri moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on its first counterclaim for a determination, inter alia, that the lease extension was terminated, and for summary judgment dismissing La Lanterna's complaint.
As the party seeking summary judgment, Fareri had the burden of establishing prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; St. Claire v Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp., 33 AD3d 611 [2006]). It failed to establish as a matter of law either that La Lanterna had breached the lease extension or that the lease extension was otherwise terminated. As the Supreme Court properly held, there were outstanding issues of fact as to the various parties' obligations under the lease extension and as to which party, if any, breached the lease extension. Because Fareri, as the proponent of the motion, did not meet its burden, denial of the motion was required without regard to the sufficiency of La Lanterna's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Liquore v Tri-Arc Mfg. Co., 32 AD3d 905 [2006]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]).
As the Supreme Court correctly noted, when the plaintiff in an action for a declaratory judgment is not entitled to the declaration sought, the remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but a declaration of the rights of the parties, whatever those rights may be (see 200 Genesee St. Corp. v City of Utica, 6 NY3d 761, 762 [2006]; Stahlbrodt v Commissioner of Taxation & Fin. of State of N.Y., 92 NY2d 646, 652 [1998]; Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]; Nadel v Costa, 91 AD2d 976 [1983]). With respect to La Lanterna's second cause of action, which was for a declaration that La Lanterna was not in breach of the lease extension, Fareri did not meet its burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Tilcon N.Y. Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie
...91 A.D.2d 976, 976, 457 N.Y.S.2d 345; Verity v. Larkin, 18 A.D.2d 842, 238 N.Y.S.2d 248; see also La Lanterna, Inc. v. Fareri Enters., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 420, 422–423, 831 N.Y.S.2d 190; Law Research Serv. v. Honeywell, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 900, 901, 298 N.Y.S.2d 1). Here, the Supreme Court denied t......
-
159 MP Corp. v. Redbridge Bedford, LLC
...Commissioner of Taxation & Fin. of State of N.Y., 92 N.Y.2d 646, 652, 684 N.Y.S.2d 466, 707 N.E.2d 421 ; La Lanterna, Inc. v. Fareri Enters., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 420, 423, 831 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; Nadel v. Costa, 91 A.D.2d 976, 457 N.Y.S.2d 345 ). By contrast, breach of contract actions call upon the......
-
227 Franklin Realty LLC v. Walnut Rd. Realty Corp.
...landlord accepting rent with knowledge of default.This Court is aware of the Second Department's holding in La Lanterna v. Fareri Enterprises , 37 A.D.3d 420, 831 N.Y.S.2d 190 (2007), that the acceptance of rent by the landlord with no waiver clause in the lease did not constitute a waiver ......
-
In re Artisanal 2015, LLC
...the Lease has not been terminated. The State Court has yet to resolve those matters. See, e.g., La Lanterna, Inc. v. Fareri Enterprises, Inc., 37 A.D.3d 420, 423-24 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007) (noting that tenant's failure to obtain a Yellowstone injunction means that if it is determined that......