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

Full Text

1,748 chars

$100,000.00 had been deposited in the escrow of his attorney in good faith to
demonstrate his ability to pay the rent when that amount was finally resolved between the
parties and/or after trial.

On September 26, 2013, the Respondent continued with its case-in-chief.
The Respondent testified that in his calculations, as stated in Respondent's Exhibit "E",
he used the chained CPI tables. He and his daughter did these calculations. When asked
why he used the chained CPI index, the witness stated "well, there didn't appear to be an
exact match for anything that was described in the lease, and I thought I should use the
one that was most favorable to me." (Brenner, p.12, lines 15-18). The difference between
his calculations and the landlord's calculations, according to Irwin Brenner, can be
simplified as follows, "I believe compounding would refer to piling on in a colloquial
term and I read this multiple times with my daughter and it seemed like the lease
specified it be applied to the fixed rent, if I remember the term correctly." (Brenner, p.15,
lines 20-24). The Respondent's chart shows that he used $225,000.00 as the fixed rent
and that amount remained the same for each preceding year.

In regards to the landlord's claim, he stated that they started at, I guess year 2
and kept changing the fixed rent number and I disagree. "[Y]ou use $225,000.00 times
the CPI for each of the years and the landlord used a larger number as the years moved
on, and his reply was that they used the previous amount each year". (Brenner, p.16, lines
10-18).

Respondent's Exhibit "E" was admitted into evidence without objection
which were the Respondent's calculations using the same base rent of $225,000.00 each
year plus the CPI increase.