2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- Citation
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Source
- Official source
- Original Source
- https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50089.htm ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
- 2015 NY Slip Op 50089
Full Text
1,740 charshas been incorrectly calculated based upon the following rationale: the landlord wrongfully attempts to charge the Respondent late fees and interest for unpaid rent going back to August 2007 notwithstanding the fact that the rent demand for such rent was made in April 2013; the landlord failed to take into account the negative changes in the CPI Index as required by the lease; the Petitioner compounds the rent by calculating the fixed rent retroactively to a period of time prior to the date that the Petitioner would be entitled to collect any increase from the Respondent as of August 2007; and the Respondent's method of calculation more fully complies with the terms of the lease. The Respondent's calculation, pursuant to the Respondent's interpretation of the disputed lease, yields uncollected rent for the subject premises in the amount of $92,457.22 and said sum has been deposited in its attorney's trust account. The Respondent further argues that the non-payment proceeding should be stayed pending a determination of the declaratory judgment action. According to the Respondent, the Respondent [*3]commenced the declaratory judgment action in or about July 25, 2013, and subsequently, on July 31, 2013, the landlord commenced the instant non-payment proceeding. The Respondent claims that both actions are pending for the same relief, and since the declaratory judgment was first in time, the summary proceedings should be stayed pending a determination of the declaratory judgment action. In the alternative, the Respondent claims that the non-payment proceeding should be stayed, removed and consolidated with the declaratory judgment action. In the interim, the request for a stay in the Supreme Court of this summary