Benderson v. Poss, 142 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · Go Syfert
Benderson v. Poss, 142 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v. Globe Alumni Student Assistance Association, Inc. (ny, 2014-12-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v. Globe Alumni Student Assistance Association, Inc.
NY · 2014 · confidence medium
On its face this argument is compelling because arguably the ability to obtain all future rent due in one lump sum, undiscounted to present-day value, and also enjoy uninterrupted possession of the property provides the landowner with more than the compensation attendant to the losses flowing from the *537 breach — even though such compensation is the recognized purpose of a liquidated damages provision (Truck Rent-A-Ctr., 41 NY2d at 423 ; see JMD Holding Corp., 4 NY3d at 382; Benderson v Poss, 142 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 1988]; Gotlieb v Taco Bell Corp., 871 F Supp 147, 155 [ED NY 1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 275 Washington Street Corp. v. Hudson River International, LLC
Mass. · 2013 · confidence medium
Partnership, 656 N.E.2d 854, 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (after landlord terminates lease “all liability under it for future rent [is] extinguished” absent express lease clause to contrary); Benderson v. Pass, 142 A.D.2d 937, 938 (N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vermont Small Business Development Corp. v. Fifth Son Corp., Henzel, Mad Partners, LLC and Pierson
Vt. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) (“[T]he lease ended by the wrongful act of plaintiffs, constituting an eviction, and in such circumstances plaintiffs are in no wise entitled to liquidated damages.”); Benderson v. Poss, 530 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363 (App. Div. 1988); Cox’s Bakeries of N.D., Inc. v. Homart Dev.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West Platt Associates v. Maggiulli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The parties did not so contract in this case and, thus, “what survives after the termination of [the] lease is not a liability for rents [and associated fees], but a liability for damages” (Benderson v Poss, 142 AD2d 937, 938 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hi Kai Investment, Ltd. v. Aloha Futons Beds & Waterbeds, Inc.
Haw. · 1996 · confidence medium
Partnership, 667 A.2d 578, 587 (D.C.App.1995) (breach of a lease creates a right to damages); Holly Farm Foods, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 114 N.C.App. 412 , 442 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1994) (breaching tenant is liable not for rent but for damages flowing from breach of contract); Schneiker, 732 P.2d at 608 (landlord can maintain an action for contract damages caused by tenant’s breach); Benderson v. Poss, 142 A.D.2d 937 , 530 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363 (N.Y.App.Div.1988) (“what survives after the termination of a lease is not liability for rents, but liability for damages”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Gotlieb v. Taco Bell Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · confidence medium
See Centurion Development, 60 A.D.2d 96 , 400 N.Y.S.2d at 266 (finding tenant liable for rent only up to date where surrender accepted by operation of law); Benderson v. Poss, 142 A.D.2d 937 , 530 N.Y.S.2d 362, 363 (1988) (limiting landlord’s liquidated damage recovery to unpaid charges accrued up to landlord’s termination of lease).
discussed Cited "see" Ross Realty v. V & A Iron Fabricators, Inc.
N.Y. App. Term. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
However, where, as here, the lease does not require the landlord to rerent the premises upon its recovery of possession after a default in rent and to apply the rent received from the rerenting to the benefit of the tenant, the accelerated rent clause is deemed to impose a penalty and is not enforceable (Rand v Conklin, NYLJ, Jan. 7, 1994, at 29, col 1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Silver v Brody, NYLJ, Apr. 23, 1993, at 25, col 6 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; Kabro Assoc. of Woodbury v Off-Campus of Woodbury, NYLJ, Nov. 16, 1992, at 32, col 5 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see Bend…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nathan Benderson
v.
Harry R. Poss, Jr.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 7, 1988.
142 A.D.2d 937
1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14954
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover accelerated rents under a clause of a lease of commercial property after defendant failed to make payments of common area charges and taxes as required by the lease agreement. Upon defendant’s default which occurred IVi years into the five-year term, plaintiffs elected to terminate the lease. On plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Special Term found that defendant had defaulted, but determined that plaintiffs forfeited their right to accelerate the rents by terminating the lease. Plaintiffs’ recovery was limited to $422.36 in unpaid charges assessed prior to the lease termination.

[*938] An acceleration clause in a lease is a device intended to secure the tenant’s obligation to perform a material element of the bargain and, in the absence of fraud, exploitive overreaching or unconscionable conduct, its enforcement works no forfeiture (Fifty States Mgt. Corp. v Pioneer Auto Parks, 46 NY2d 573, 577-578). "This, of course, presumes that the sum reserved for liquidated damages is no greater than the amount the tenant would have paid had it fully performed and that the tenant would be entitled to possession upon payment” (Fifty States Mgt. Corp. v Pioneer Auto Parks, supra, at 578). Here, the defendant tenant was locked out of the leased premises and the lease relationship terminated. Thus, plaintiffs were not entitled to collect, as rents, subsequent installments thereof due under the lease (see, International Publs. v Matchabelli, 260 NY 451, 453).

Plaintiffs correctly argue that a landlord and tenant may contract for the tenant’s continued liability after the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship (International Publs. v Matchabelli, supra, at 454). However, what survives after the termination of a lease is not a liability for rents, but a liability for damages (International Publs. v Matchabelli, supra, at 454). "A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” (Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 425). Were we to view the accelerated rent provision as one for liquidated damages, it would also be unenforceable since it would provide plaintiffs with damages "grossly disproportionate to the probable loss” (Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, supra, at 425).

In addition to seeking actual damages in the amount of the unpaid common area charges and taxes, plaintiffs’ complaint seeks only recovery of accelerated rent pursuant to paragraph 16 of the lease. Since the latter claim is unenforceable in these circumstances, Special Term properly limited plaintiffs’ recovery to the amount of actual damages alleged in the complaint. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.