Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PIER 59 STUDIOS L.P., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. CHELSEA PIERS L.P., Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 15, 2005, which, inter alia, granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims, and denied in part plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to grant those branches of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the cause of action for a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the claim for attorneys' fees, and the demand for punitive damages, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.
Preliminarily, plaintiff's failure to furnish this Court with a copy of its amended complaint prevents consideration of its argument that such pleading moots the appeal (see American Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co. v. North Atl. Resources, 261 A.D.2d 310, 691 N.Y.S.2d 403 [1999] ).
Plaintiff may not maintain a separate cause of action for attorneys' fees, which are only recoverable as an element of contract damages if a breach of the sublease is proven (see Burke v. Crosson, 85 N.Y.2d 10, 17-18, 623 N.Y.S.2d 524, 647 N.E.2d 736 [1995] ). The demand for punitive damages should also have been dismissed for lack of allegations of egregious tortious conduct independent of a breach of contract and aimed at the public generally (see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 315-316, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 [1995] ). In addition, we dismiss the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Hawthorne Group v. RRE Ventures, 7 A.D.3d 320, 323, 776 N.Y.S.2d 273 [2004] ), and we modify accordingly.
Similarly, the fraud claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the contract claim (see Morgan Knitting Mills v. Reeves Bros., 243 A.D.2d 422, 663 N.Y.S.2d 211 [1997] ). The claim for breach of the covenant of quiet use and enjoyment is not viable because plaintiff remains in possession of the premises (see Barash v. Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 77, 83, 308 N.Y.S.2d 649, 256 N.E.2d 707 [1970] ).
Finally, with respect to the counterclaims, there are issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, plaintiff's use of the premises violated the lease or municipal ordinances, and whether defendant approved of plaintiff's alterations and frustrated plaintiff's attempts to cure the Building Code violations (see WPA/Partners v. Port Imperial Ferry Corp., 307 A.D.2d 234, 237, 763 N.Y.S.2d 266 [2003] ). We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be unavailing.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 02, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)