Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tenant Who Stopped Paying Rent May Not Recover Damages
20 Broad Street Owner, LLC v. Sonder USA, Inc. 2024 WL 4292552 AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In landlord’s action for rent, tenant appealed from Supreme Court’s grant of landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing tenant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Appellate Division to reinstate the counterclaim for breach of contracts and to grant discovery on issues of damages, and otherwise affirmed because tenant had failed to establish that it had abandoned the premises.
In response to landlord’s action, tenant raised affirmative defenses for constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, frustration of purpose, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, and conversion arising from Legionella contamination of the building. Supreme Court granted landlord’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on tenant’s failure to vacate the premises.
In modifying, the Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court’s conclusion that tenant’s surrender agreement and subsequent letter contradicted its assertion that it had abandoned the premises. The court emphasized that ceasing operations is insufficient to constitute vacating the premises. The court, however reinstated the breach of contract counterclaim based on landlord’s failure to maintain the building’s plumbing system which might have contributed to Legionella contamination. But the court also held that once tenant stopped paying rent tenant elected a remedy which precluded a claim for damages after the date on which rent payments stopped
Comment
Unless a lease states otherwise, a tenant who elects to withhold rent waives any claims for damages for the period during which it withheld the rent. In Frame v. Horizons Wine & Cheese, 95 A.D.2d 514, the Second Department, in reversing a judgment for landlord and remitting for a new trial on tenant’s counterclaim for damages, held that the tenant was entitled to damages only for the period before tenant elected to withhold rent, and not for subsequent months. In addition to difficulties with the heating system in the leased restaurant premises, a chimney collapsed, leading the building department to prohibit occupation of the premises, and leading tenant to stop paying rent, asserting partial actual eviction. The court held that withholding rent constituted an election of remedies, and foreclosed damage recovery for the months subsequent to the partial actual eviction. Similarly. in E-Z Eating 41 Corp. v. H.E. Newport, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 415, the First Department granted a landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant’s cause of action for breach of lease and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because tenant’s decision to vacate the premises and cease rental payment constituted an election of remedies and barred the tenant’s claim for damages.
By contrast, if tenant continues to pay rent after landlord breach, the Frame court indicated that tenant may claim damages, including consequential damages, lost profits, and the difference between actual rental value and rent paid by the tenant. Similarly, in 487 Elmwood v. Hassett, 107 A.D.2d 285, the Fourth Department held that when a shopping center owner deprived a major tenant of parking area covered by the lease, Supreme Court improperly limited tenant to nominal damages when tenant had elected to pay rent and remain in possession. The court held that if, on remand, tenant could establish, through expert testimony, that the actual rental value of the portion of the premise from which it was evicted was greater than the proportionate part of the rent allocable to it, tenant could recover the difference. The court also held that although a tenant who remains in possession would generally be entitled to recover lost profits and consequential damages, the shopping center tenant in this case had failed, at the initial trial, to establish these damages
A tenant’s withholding of rent is not an election of remedies in cases where there is an express provision in the lease entitling tenant to withhold rent for landlord breach In Fifth Line, LLC v. Fitch, 167 A.D.3d 847, the Second Department granted the tenant’s summary judgment motion dismissing the landlord’s election of remedies affirmative defense, concluding that tenant’s withholding of rent was not an election of remedies because the lease contained an express provision stating that tenant could withhold rent if the premises were damaged and not repaired. Tenant had withheld rent because of a long-standing water condition that had damaged the floor of the premises.
*****
Doctrine of Emblements May Entitle Tenant to Collect Damages for Loss of Crops
Van Amburgh v. Boadle
2024 WL 3707600 AppDiv, Third Dept.
(Opinion by Pritzker, J; opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Aarons, J.)
In an action by agricultural tenant for breach of contract and conversion, tenant appealed from Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that the doctrine of emblements might sustain tenant’s claim.
The parties entered into a 5-year land lease agreement for the period between Jan. 1, 2016 and Jan. 1, 2021. The lease agreement involved “the use of agricultural land” and gave each party the right to terminate the lease on 90-days notice. In fall 2019 tenants planted crops that allegedly could not be harvested until September 2020. On Feb. 1, 2020, landlord exercised its termination right and advised tenant that the lease would terminate on May 1. Landlord advised tenant to harvest the crops in the spring, but tenant responded that it could not meet that deadline because the crops would not be ready. After May 1, landlord sprayed the land with herbicide, killing the crops. Tenant then brought this action for breach of contract and conversion. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, relying on the termination provision in the lease.
In reversing, the Appellate Division held that the doctrine of emblements provided tenant with a non-exclusive right to enter the premises to care for and harvest the crops planted before the termination. The complaint set forth a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by alleging that landlord’s exercise of the early termination provision without allowing tenant to re-enter to harvest the crops.
Justices Aarons and Egan agreed that the doctrine of emblements was sufficient to support a conversion claim, but dissented from the majority’s invocation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Comment
The doctrine of emblements allows tenants with leases for indefinite periods to harvest annual crops planted before receiving notice of lease termination. In Harris v. Frink, 49 N.Y. 24, the court reversed an order that had nonsuited a tenant’s claim to recover possession of oats planted before receiving a termination notice. The tenant had agreed with the landlord to farm the land while awaiting the finalization of a sale. When the sale fell through, the landlord forcibly removed the tenant and harvested the crops. The Court of Appeals held that the tenant’s arrangement to farm the land while awaiting the sale’s completion constituted a tenancy at will and therefore the doctrine of emblements entitled the tenant to harvest crops planted before the landlord terminated the lease.
The doctrine only applies to annual crops, which must be replanted each year. In Triggs v. Kahn, 167 A.D.2d 680, the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment, dismissing the tenants’ claim for possession because the crops in question were perennial, which continued to grow without needing to be replanted annually. The alfalfa-timothy crop is cultivated for a minimum of five years, which disqualifies it from protection under the doctrine. The court added that perennial crops are considered part of the land and, therefore, belong to the landlord. Furthermore, the doctrine does not apply if a tenant plants crops knowing when the lease will terminate. In Triggs, the court noted that even if the crops were annual, the doctrine wouldn’t apply because the lease was for a definite year-to-year period, and the tenant was aware of the lease’s expiration at the time of planting.
The doctrine of emblements does not apply if the tenant voluntarily terminates the lease or defaults, such as through non-payment of rent. In Samson v. Rose, 65 N.Y. 411, the court held that the tenant’s claim for emblements failed because the tenant did not pay rent. The landlord had the legal right to disputed buckwheat because the tenant’s failure to pay rent led landlord to obtain possession after the buckwheat had been sown but before it matured. Similarly, in Hetfield v. Lawton, 108 A.D. 113, the court affirmed dismissal of tenant’s conversion claim because the tenant’s notice to quit precluded any right to emblements. Although the tenant planted annual crops before giving the landlord notice-to-quit, the court held that the doctrine of emblements protects tenants from losing crops only due to unforeseen lease termination, but not when voluntary termination makes the event foreseeable.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?