242 v. AKM NY (2026)

After inquest held before the Honorable Caroline Piela Cohen in the above referenced action on August 3, 2026, the Court finds the following:

Facts and Procedural History:

242 Nevins Inc, ("242 Nevins"), is a domestic corporation with a principal place of business at 203-211 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207 (the "Property"). The Property is a 12,500 square-foot vacant lot. 242 Nevins discovered that AKM Construction NY Corporation ("AKM") was occupying the property without 242 Nevins' consent.

242 Nevins brought the instant action against the Defendant, AKM for claims including possession, ejectment, and money damages for AKM's alleged improper use of 242 Nevins' property.

This matter commenced with the filing of a Summons and Complaint in Kings County Supreme Court on January 1, 2025.

Plaintiff served a 30-day Notice To Quit on AKM, requiring their vacatur no later than December 31, 2024. AKM failed to vacate the premises at the end of the term as noticed and remained in possession of the premises.

On February 5, 2026, Hon. Robin K. Sheares awarded 242 Nevins a judgment of possession and ejectment and further set the matter for an inquest on damages. The requests were granted on default without any opposition from AKM. The matter was set for inquest as AKM failed to oppose the motion via papers or oral arguments.

The inquest proceeded on August 3, 2026. 242 Nevins appeared via its counsel Richard A. Rosenzweig, and AKM appeared by its counsel Ali R. Jaffery. Counsel for 242 Nevins and AKM stipulated to allowing AKM to appear at the inquest for the limited purpose to cross-examine 242 Nevins' witnesses.

Factual and Legal Arguments:

In support of their claims, 242 Nevins offered testimony of Nancy Mazzie, property manager for the Property, as well as expert testimony from real property appraiser Matthew DeBlasio. Ms. Mazzie testified regarding the nature of her job with respect to 242 Nevins, the events revolving around the acquisition of the Property and lastly AKM's illegal occupancy that led to the present lawsuit. Mr. DeBlasio provided an expert report estimating the value of the Property based on ten (10) comparable properties. Mr. DeBlasio adjusted the rental values of the comparable properties up or down based on how certain features, such as size, related to the Property to calculate its estimated rental value. Ultimately, the expert report found that based on the ten comparable properties, the Property has an average adjusted rental value of $14.83 per square foot.

In opposition, AKM suggested that the expert opinion of the value of the property should either be disregarded completely, or certain portions of the testimony and report should be given zero weight.

First, AKM argued that the expert testimony should be disregarded in part or whole because Mr. DeBlasio used ten comparable properties in his report and calculated adjustments ranging from 0% - 10% to form the basis of his opinion on the market rate for the Property. Mr. DeBlasio made adjustments based on three (3) factors: size, utility, and lease terms. Mr. DeBlasio stated that properties that are larger in size typically rent for less per square foot than those of smaller sizes. While taking this into account, Mr. DeBlasio adjusted rental values based on the comparables' sizes in relation to the Property. For example, if the comparable was larger than the Property, the adjustment would be in the upwards direction, whereas if the comparable was smaller than the Property, the adjustment would be in the downwards direction. Utility adjustments focused on any amenities that were present in comparable properties but not on the Property. For example, if the comparable included a low-rise structure, was paved, or had lights that would merit some downward adjustments as none of those features exist on the property. Finally, Mr. DeBlasio also adjusted based on lease terms where industrial gross lease terms and modified gross lease terms required a downwards adjustment because certain lease agreements require the landlord to share costs such as property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. This is in contrast to triple net leases, where the tenant covers all such expenses; Accordingly, the rent in triple net leases is typically lower, because they account for the tenant absorbing additional costs of taxes, insurance and maintenance. AKM wholesale objected to the use of any comparables that needed adjustments. AKM argued that the rental values of the comparables in question were not adjusted in an objective manner and that the use of rental adjustments without objective support would not be probative for use and occupancy and should therefore be ignored. In support of their position, AKM cites to 2641 Concourse Co. v City University of New York 137 Misc 2d 802 (NY Ct Cl 1987). The court in 2641 Concourse Co. disregarded the expert's appraisal based in part on the extreme adjustments made by the expert on the comparable properties. See 2641 Concourse Co. at 806 (Wherein the Court disregarded the appraiser's opinion because the overall adjustments ranged from 65% - 80% increases in the rental value of those comparable properties). Another issue that the court had in 2641 Concourse Co. with the proffered expert opinion was that the expert there failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the adjustments that were calculated. Id. The court in 2641 Concourse Co. did not give any weight to the plaintiff's appraiser because the appraiser failed to offer any evidence to support the location adjustments other than his opinion, and the appraisal opinion was not based on facts that were properly before admitted into evidence. Id.

In response to these contentions 242 Nevins pointed to Mr. DeBlasio's report which outlined various factors that were considered in making the rental adjustments to the comparable properties, including size, utility, and lease terms. Additionally, while Mr. DeBlasio did utilize adjustments, their scale was not comparable to those used by the expert appraiser in 2641 Concourse Co. such that the appraisal should be discounted. Mr. DeBlasio also provided sufficient reasoning for making the adjustments. For those reasons, the instant Court finds that 2641 Concourse Co. is not controlling, and Mr. DeBlasio's opinion may be considered in determining the damages.

Second, AKM argued that the rental prices used in estimating market value of the Property were based on rental listings rather than actual rental agreements and therefore should not be given any weight. In support of this argument, AKM relies on Lauren S. v Alexander S. for the proposition that rental listings are inadmissible at trial to show fair market value. Lauren S. v Alexander S. 205 AD3d 632, 633 (1st Dept. 2022) citing Matter of John Jay Coll. Of Criminal Justice of the City Univ. of NY 74 AD3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 16 NY3d 889 [2011], cert denied 566 US 982, 132 S Ct. 2102, 182 L ED 2d 883 [2012]. This is not persuasive to the Court, as the property in question in Lauren S. was a property for sale, while the property value here concerns rental value only.

In response, 242 Nevins argued that the value of rental properties may be based on rental listing price because the speed of the market is relatively quick for rentals when compared to the speed of the market for purchases. For those reasons, the facts of Lauren S. are inapposite to the facts here, and therefore the Court will consider all comparables used in the expert report.

Conclusion:

It is determined that the total damages suffered by the Plaintiff, 242 Nevins is calculated at a rental value of $14.83 over the course of 19 months, with the subject property being 12,500 square feet in dimension. The total value of damages being $293,510.42.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the claim for money damages is granted in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $293,510.42.

ORDERED that the clerk of the court enter judgment forthwith in accordance with this decision.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Date: September 14, 2026

Brooklyn, NY

Hon. Caroline Piela Cohen, J.S.C.

Caroline Piela Cohen, J.