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.
BATES ADVERTISING USA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. 498 SEVENTH, LLC, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 30, 2000, which, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, denied defendant landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff tenant's cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Paragraph 54(c) of the Lease between plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord provides:
If Landlord does not substantially complete the work described in Part E of Exhibit C by January 1, 1999 and Tenant has taken full occupancy of the initial demised premises and is conducting its ordinary business therein, then Tenant shall be entitled to a one-half (1/212) day delay in the occurrence of the Commencement Date for all portions of the premises for each day from January 2, 1999 until Landlord substantially completes such work; provided, however, that if the work that Landlord so failed to complete is that described in items E-7 or E-8 of Exhibit C, then the one-half (1/212) day shall be changed to one (1) day.
Contrary to plaintiff's claim, we find that this provision does not create an express condition precedent (compare, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685, 690-692, 636 N.Y.S.2d 734, 660 N.E.2d 415), but instead constitutes a liquidated damages clause (see, Truck Rent-A-Ctr. v. Puritan Farms 2nd, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 420, 424-425, 393 N.Y.S.2d 365, 361 N.E.2d 1015; LeRoy v. Sayers, 217 A.D.2d 63, 69, 635 N.Y.S.2d 217). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied at this juncture since factual issues remain as to whether such liquidated damages clause is unenforceable as a penalty (L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc. v. New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 179 A.D.2d 322, 332, 584 N.Y.S.2d 472), and as to whether defendant breached its obligations under the lease regarding “Stage Two” work and the installation of the submeters.
Thank you for your feedback!
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 08, 2001
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)