Misc LEXIS 739, at *3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002, per curiam].)
Although the First and Second Departments are split, they are split in regard to the issue of
releasing funds already held in an escrow account. The issue here is whether Civil Court should
order the replenishment of funds to an escrow account. Civil Court's jurisdiction does not extend
that far.
Even if this court did have jurisdiction over the escrow account—and it does
not—the funds would be considered future rent according to paragraph 3 of the escrow
agreement. But under this court's limited jurisdiction, "no suit can be brought for future rent."
(Maflo Holding Corp. v S.J. Blume, Inc., 308 NY 570, 575 [1955].) Civil Court is
"without authority to provide for the disposition of future rent." (Notre Dame Leasing Corp. v
Sirico, NYLJ, Apr. 2, 1992, at 26, col 2 [App Term 2d Dept 2d & 11th Jud Dists, mem].) In
Notre Dame Leasing, Civil Court awarded the tenant an abatement of $700 for previous
months' rent and a future abatement of rent for $600 to enable the tenant to purchase a
refrigerator. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the decision, striking the order
regarding the award of future rent. The Appellate Term, Second Department, explained that Civil
Court does not have the jurisdiction to abate future rent.
Petitioner has remedies. Petitioner could, were it so advised, bring a holdover proceeding,
arguing that in failing to maintain the escrow balance, respondents breached a material term of
their proprietary lease and a substantial obligation of the tenancy. (See e.g. [*5]Markowitz v Landau, 171 AD2d 564, 565 [1st Dept 1991].)
Petitioner could also bring a plenary action in Supreme Court, which has the equitable
jurisdiction to direct respondent to replenish the escrow funds.