54 56 MANAGEMENT CORP v. MTA FINE ARTS CO INC (2022)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

54-56 MANAGEMENT CORP., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, v. MTA FINE ARTS CO., INC., Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

570183 /22

Decided: September 27, 2022

PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.

Order (Ilana J. Marcus, J.), dated May 27, 2022, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The written rent demand issued personally by “54-56 Management Corp. Landlord,” specifying the amount of rent allegedly due by tenant and the period during which such rent accrued, satisfied the requirements of RPAPL 711(2) and was a sufficient predicate for the maintenance of this commercial nonpayment summary proceeding (see 1590 Lexington LLC v 1590 Corp., 53 Misc 3d 155[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51766[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Brusco v Miller, 167 Misc 2d 54 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]). Contrary to tenant's assertion, “there is no signature requirement in RPAPL ․ 711[2]” (L & B 595 Madison Inc. v Susan Sheehan Inc., NYLJ, August 31, 1994, at 22, col.6 1994 NY Misc Lexis 711 [Civ Ct, NY County, Gische, J.]).

Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is. (67 NY2d 792 [1986]), relied upon by tenant, is inapposite because tenant cites to no provision in the “lease between the parties requiring that the demand be signed by the landlord” (Yui Woon Kwong v Sun Po Eng, 183 AD2d 558, 560 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network