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

1,729 chars

as unconscionable. (Ultrashmere House, Ltd. v. 38 Town Associates, 123 Misc 2d 102,
473 N.Y.S.2d 120).

In addition to the above, Courts struck some of the above types of lease provisions
using the doctrine of contracts of adhesion'. After all, as Robert F. Dolan, Rasch's
Landlord & Tenan-Summary Proceedings, §2:8 at 112 [4th ed.],
provides "all leases are subject to judicial scrutiny under the concept of unconscionability
and if the lease is or any provision thereof is found to be unconscionable when made, the
court may refuse to enforce the lease or to strike that unconscionable provision".

A good analysis by Judge David A. Sears, in VP Village Park, LLC v. Victor, 40
Misc 3d 1233 (A), 2013 WL 4565918 (NY Just. Ct)) depicts a dispute involving the
validity of a late charge provision in a lease. He said that "[a] contract of adhesion is a
contract formed as a product of gross inequality of bargaining power between the parties.
Such a contract will be deemed unconscionable when it inflicts substantive unfairness on
the weaker party. Such a contract often arises when a standardized form is presented to a
party whose choice is either to accept or reject a contract without an opportunity to
negotiate its terms. An adhesion contract tainted by unconscionability is unenforceable.
A contract of adhesion will be set aside upon a showing of unfairness, undue oppression
or unconscionability. Standardized contracts are not unenforceable merely because of an
inequality of bargaining power of the parties without additional proof of
unconscionablity or violation of public policy. In considering the doctrine of contracts of
adhesion, a court must look for the elements of such a contract which are (1) a necessity