The Leasing Hotline

On March 1, 2000, the landlord commenced another action seeking rent for October, November, and December 1999, and January, February, and March 2000 in the same local court. After the trial, the landlord was awarded rent for those six months. The landlord then made repairs to the premises and re-let them on Dec. 15, 2000.

The landlord then commenced the instant action in a different court with a higher monetary limit to recover damages for breach of lease for the period March 1, 2000 through Dec. 15, 2000, the expenses incurred to prepare the premises for re-letting, the deficiency between the rent to have been paid pursuant to the original lease and the rents to be collected from that same person under the new lease, and attorneys' fees. The tenant moved to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed.

It held that both parties were present in the local court action and that the landlord had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of damages in that action. The finding by the local court that the landlord failed to prove additional damages did not give the landlord the right to re-file the claim with the trial court. The court noted that the landlord chose to file in the local city court, which had a jurisdictional limit of $15,000, and she did not have the right to sue for additional damages later in a different court with a higher jurisdictional limit.

Landlord's Third Legal Action Barred

Res judicata and collateral estoppel bar a landlord from commencing a second action in a different court with a higher jurisdictional limit after the first court makes a proper determination of the issues. Licini v. Graceland Florist, Inc., et al., 2005-04180 (Index No. 18150/01) Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, Sept. 12, 2006.

The landlord and tenant entered into a lease to occupy a store from Dec. 1, 1995, to Nov. 30, 2005. Thereafter, the tenant failed to pay rent for September, October, and November 1999. The landlord commenced a summary proceeding in a local court against the tenant and the subtenant seeking possession and back rent of $2500 per month. The landlord recovered possession and obtained a judgment in the sum of $7500.

On March 1, 2000, the landlord commenced another action seeking rent for October, November, and December 1999, and January, February, and March 2000 in the same local court. After the trial, the landlord was awarded rent for those six months. The landlord then made repairs to the premises and re-let them on Dec. 15, 2000.

The landlord then commenced the instant action in a different court with a higher monetary limit to recover damages for breach of lease for the period March 1, 2000 through Dec. 15, 2000, the expenses incurred to prepare the premises for re-letting, the deficiency between the rent to have been paid pursuant to the original lease and the rents to be collected from that same person under the new lease, and attorneys' fees. The tenant moved to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed.

It held that both parties were present in the local court action and that the landlord had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of damages in that action. The finding by the local court that the landlord failed to prove additional damages did not give the landlord the right to re-file the claim with the trial court. The court noted that the landlord chose to file in the local city court, which had a jurisdictional limit of $15,000, and she did not have the right to sue for additional damages later in a different court with a higher jurisdictional limit.