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

1,747 chars

of any substantial prejudice to the Respondent. Irwin Brenner never testified to any
substantial personal or corporate prejudice due to the rent increase. Although the laches
defense is not applicable in commercial proceedings, this Court has the discretion to
determine if the Petitioner is entitled to entry of a judgment of possession or for money
or both based on all of the above facts. However, since the Respondent has not proffered
any evidence of prejudice or harm, the Court finds that there is no prejudice or harm to
the Respondent corporation as a result of the rent increases. In fact, both the Respondent
and his attorney submitted evidence that the sums that they believed owed is deposited
into the escrow account of his attorney. Since the Respondent has deposited the rent that
he claims is due, this Court can reasonably conclude that the Respondent has the ability
to pay any sums determined due and owing by this Court.

For all of the reasons stated above, the lease is not ambiguous, has been construed by
its plain and ordinary terms and conditions, and is enforceable against the Respondent as
stated below.

THE FIXED
RENT BASED ON FIXED RENT INCREASES PRIOR TO THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION IS NOT PRECLUDED

One of the critical components of the Respondent's claims involve the manner and
method of the rent calculation by the Petitioner. The Respondent claims that the
Petitioner is not entitled to increase the fixed rent for the commercial space and if
allowed to collect the yearly increases by the Court, that the Court preclude the Petitioner
from using any rental amount for any time period before the statute of limitation; in this
case, prior to August 2007. The Respondent's arguments are fatally flawed and