Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v. Chelsea Piers, L.P.

Decision Date15 May 2007
Docket Number151.,151B.,151A.
Citation2007 NY Slip Op 04179,836 N.Y.S.2d 68,40 A.D.3d 363
PartiesPIER 59 STUDIOS, L.P., Appellant, v. CHELSEA PIERS, L.P., Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

This appeal arises from a long-standing landlord/tenant dispute, which has resulted in numerous court orders and three prior appeals to this Court.

On October 27, 1994, defendant Chelsea Piers L.P. (Chelsea Piers) subleased second-floor and third-floor loft space at Chelsea Piers to plaintiff Pier 59 Studios, L.P. (Pier 59) to be utilized as a fashion and photography studio, dining facility, outside roof deck and offices, pursuant to a written sublease. By letter dated November 19, 1996, Pier 59 and Chelsea Piers agreed to expand the type of use that could be made of the premises in order for Pier 59 to run nonfashion special events, with Pier 59 agreeing to pay Chelsea Piers 7.5% of the gross revenues generated by the events. Pursuant to subsequent subleases, Pier 59 subleased additional space from Chelsea Piers.

Pier 59 ultimately sued Chelsea Piers for various violations of the subleases. Chelsea Piers asserted counterclaims alleging that Pier 59 breached the subleases, inter alia, by operating a public nightclub on its premises and erecting an unapproved "wooden roof deck." One of the major disputes between the parties involves a "fabric structure" which Pier 59 erected on its roof deck in 1999, which was described as a large two-story steel and aluminum-framed structure covered with fabric, including a large canopy.

On April 19, 2006, Pier 59 moved to serve a fourth amended complaint to specifically plead facts regarding Chelsea Piers' failure and refusal to provide the landlord's signatures and sign-offs for submission to New York City and other relevant governmental agencies of the applications, forms, plans and approval requests for the use of the premises that Pier 59 had submitted to Chelsea Piers, which, it alleged, breached Chelsea Piers' express and implied obligations to Pier 59. It also sought to add a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought punitive damages. In a supporting affidavit, the president of Pier 59, relying principally on the parties' July 15, 2003 letter agreement and subsequent e-mail, argued that Chelsea Piers had previously agreed to permit Pier 59 to make the alterations and to provide the landlord's signatures and sign-offs for the appropriate permits.

The court denied the motion to amend, holding that the proposed fourth amended complaint was lacking in merit in that it alleged that Chelsea Piers breached purported agreements to sign off on applications to legalize a roof deck. The court noted that it had already ruled in prior decisions that Chelsea Piers had no obligation to do so under the sublease between the parties. It held that the allegedly new evidence of postsublease written agreements by Chelsea Piers—a July 15, 2003 letter and self-serving e-mail from a Pier 59 employee— did not satisfy the sublease's requirement of a writing signed by Chelsea Piers agreeing to change the terms of the sublease. The court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • 544 W. 157th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Alliance Prop. Mgmt. & Dev., Inc., Index No. 104203/2012
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2013
    ...3025(b); McGhee v. Odell, 96 A.D.3d at 450; MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Grevstone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d at 5 00; Pier 59 Studios, L.P v. Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366 (1st Dep't 2007); Thompson v. Cooper, 24 A.D.3d at 205. See Bernstein v. Freudman, 136 A.D.2d 490, 492-93 (1st Dep't 1988)......
  • Pizarro v. Lignelli
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 6, 2014
  • Jefferson Acquisition Corp. v. 450 Vill. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2013
    ...at 499-500; Humphreys & Harding, Inc. v. Universal Bonding Ins. Co., 52 A.D.3d at 326; Pier 59 Studios, L.P v. Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366 (1st Dep't 2007); Sabo v. Alan B. Brill, P.C., 25 A.D.3d at 421. As set forth above, the proposed second amended complaint, on its face, fai......
  • D'Alessandro v. Carro
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 18, 2014
    ...motion before the motion court was one to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable ( Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v. Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept.2007] ). We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Accordingly, the appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2018 Contents
    • August 2, 2018
    ...to whether parties had agreed to essential terms extending provision of a contract. Art and Fashion Group Corp. v. Cyclops Prod., Inc. , 40 A.D.3d 363, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1st Dept. 2014). Emails can qualify as documentary evidence if they meet the “essentially undeniable” test. Amsterdam Hosp......
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2020 Contents
    • August 2, 2020
    ...to whether parties had agreed to essential terms extending provision of a contract. Art and Fashion Group Corp. v. Cyclops Prod., Inc. , 40 A.D.3d 363, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1st Dept. 2014). Emails can qualify as documentary evidence if they meet the “essentially undeniable” test. Amsterdam Hosp......
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...to whether parties had agreed to essential terms extending provision of a contract. Art and Fashion Group Corp. v. Cyclops Prod., Inc., 40 A.D.3d 363, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1st Dept. 2014). Emails can qualify as documentary evidence if they meet the “essentially undeniable” test. Amsterdam Hospi......
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ...to whether parties had agreed to essential terms extending provision of a contract. Art and Fashion Group Corp. v. Cyclops Prod., Inc. , 40 A.D.3d 363, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1st Dept. 2014). Emails can qualify as documentary evidence if they meet the “essentially undeniable” test. Amsterdam Hosp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT