LLC v. 2030 LLC (2026)

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Jeffrey S. Zellan, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2026, deemed an appeal from the final judgments (Jeffrey S. Zellan, J.), each entered on or about the same date, and so considered (see CPLR 5520 [c]), final judgments affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs.

The evidentiary proof submitted by landlord established its entitlement to summary judgment based upon the commercial tenant's failure to pay rent and other charges due under the governing commercial lease agreement (see Flatiron 30 LLC v Continuum Co. LLC, 227 AD3d 463 [2024]; Thor Gallery At S. DeKalb, LLC v Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., 143 AD3d 498 [2016]). Tenants' submissions in opposition to the motion and support of the cross-motion were insufficient to raise any issue of fact.

Tenants' contention that landlord frustrated its ability to use the premises as a child care center is unavailing, as "the obligation to pay rent pursuant to a commercial lease is an independent covenant, and . . . cannot be relieved by allegations of a landlord's breach, absent an express provision to the contrary" (Universal Communications Network, Inc. v 229 W. 28th Owner, LLC, 85 AD3d 668, 669 [2011]). The lease required tenants to tender rent payments "without any setoff or deductions whatsoever" and they cite to no provision which relieved them of this obligation (see Port Morris Distillery, Inc. v Global Estate LLC, 223 AD3d 483, 484 [2024]).

Landlord's written rent demand, which afforded tenants notice of the particular periods for which rent and other charges were due and the approximate good faith amount claimed for each such period, satisfied the requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 711 (2), and was a sufficient predicate for the maintenance of this nonpayment summary proceeding (see e.g. 54-56 Mgt. Corp. v MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc., 76 Misc 3d 136[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50949[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]; 501 Seventh Ave. Assoc., LLC v 501 Seventh Ave. Bake Corp., 7 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50799[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]; Brusco v Miller, 167 Misc 2d 54 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]). The increased amount sought in the petition and on landlord's motion for summary judgment was not improper or prejudicial to tenants. "[I]t is the established practice in nonpayment proceedings to allow the amendment of the petition to include all rent that has accrued following the commencement of the proceeding" and no new rent demand is required for those additional amounts (36 Main Realty Corp. v Wang Law Off., PLLC, 49 Misc 3d 51, 54 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Moreover, the increased amount sought in the petition for ongoing arrears was reasonably related to the amount stated in the rent demand and was not confusing or surprising as tenants claim (see 10 Midwood LLC v Hyacinth, 2003 NY Slip Op 50789[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]).

Nor was an additional five-day notice of default required as per the terms of the parties' stipulation of settlement of a Supreme Court action, since tenants fully satisfied all the terms of the stipulation and the Supreme court action was discontinued long before commencement of the instant proceeding.

The Court properly awarded judgment against Workplayce, Inc., in addition to Workplayce 2030 Broadway LLC. Workplayce, Inc., is identified as the "tenant" in the lease, and both entities previously sued landlord under the lease in Supreme Court, and the claims in that action were resolved in a stipulation requiring both entities to pay substantial rent arrears to landlord.

We have examined tenants' remaining contentions and

find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 27, 2026