Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
128 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1881–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
BLF Realty Holding Corp. v. Kashergreen2 sentences2012Ave. v Pendry, 308 AD2d 543, 543-544 [2003]; see also BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kosher, 299 AD2d 87, 91 [2002]). 2003Where, as here, there has been a substantial surcharge by the tenant, the tenant should not be permitted to cure the lease violation (see BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kasher, supra; Continental Towers Ltd. | 2 | 3 |
Kent v. Lefkowitzgreen2 sentences2024CPLR § 7803(3); Kent v. Lefkowitz, 27 N.Y.3d 499, 505 (2016); W. 58th St. 2024CPLR § 7803(3); Kent v. Lefkowitz, 27 N.Y.3d 499, 505 (2016); W. 58th St. | 2 | 2 |
1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidusgreen2 sentences2021Contrary to defendants' contention, the relevant duty breached by them was the requirement in the proprietary lease to comply with all laws and ordinances. "[W]here it is alleged that the complained-of conduct constituted not merely a violation of the lease, but a lease violation consisting of illegal conduct or conduct causing ongoing damage to other apartments," the usual six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is tolled for harms that cause damage within the six-year period ( 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus , 289 AD2d 145, 146 [1st Dept 2001]). 2021Contrary to defendants' contention, the relevant duty breached by them was the requirement in the proprietary lease to comply with all laws and ordinances. "[W]here it is alleged that the complained-of conduct constituted not merely a violation of the lease, but a lease violation consisting of illegal conduct or conduct causing ongoing damage to other apartments," the usual six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is tolled for harms that cause damage within the six-year period ( 1050 Tenants Corp. v Lapidus , 289 AD2d 145, 146 [1st Dept 2001]). | 2 | 2 |
151-155 Atlantic Avenue Inc. v. Pendrygreen2 sentences2012Ave. v Pendry, 308 AD2d 543, 543-544 [2003]; see also BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kosher, 299 AD2d 87, 91 [2002]). 2012Ave. v Pendry, 308 AD2d 543, 543-544 [2003]; see also BLF Realty Holding Corp. v Kosher, 299 AD2d 87, 91 [2002]). | 2 | 2 |
Ben Lee Distributors, Inc. v. Halstead Harrison Partnershipgreen2 sentences2011A landlord may not circumvent General Obligations Law § 5-321 “merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance” (Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor, 91 AD2d 827, 828 ; see Ben Lee Distribs., Inc., 72 AD3d at 716 ). 2011A landlord may not circumvent General Obligations Law § 5-321 “merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance” (Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor, 91 AD2d 827, 828 [1982]; see Ben Lee Distribs., Inc., 72 AD3d at 716 ). | 2 | 2 |
Landmark Properties v. Olivogreen2 sentences2011However, since RPAPL 753 (4) applies only in New York City, elsewhere in the state ‘the only time available to a residential tenant within which a lease violation may be cured is the time provided in the notice to cure’ (Landmark Props. v Olivo, 10 Misc 3d 1, 2 [2005]). 2008However, since RPAPL 753 (4) applies only in New York City, elsewhere in the state “the only time available to a residential tenant within which a lease violation may be cured is the time provided in the notice to cure” (Landmark Props. v Olivo, 10 Misc 3d 1, 2 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Graphic Arts Supply, Inc. v. Raynorgreen2 sentences2011A landlord may not circumvent General Obligations Law § 5-321 “merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance” (Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor, 91 AD2d 827, 828 ; see Ben Lee Distribs., Inc., 72 AD3d at 716 ). 2011A landlord may not circumvent General Obligations Law § 5-321 “merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance” (Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor, 91 AD2d 827, 828 [1982]; see Ben Lee Distribs., Inc., 72 AD3d at 716 ). | 1 | 5 |
ATM One, LLC v. Landaverdegreen2 sentences2023The issue before this Court in that case was whether the rule set forth Matter of ATM One v Landaverde , 2 NY3d 472 (2004), requiring the [*2]addition of five days to the 10—day statutory cure period for service by mail of notices to cure a lease violation, should be extended to a notice of nonrenewal in a nonprimary residence proceeding. 2023The issue before this Court in that case was whether the rule set forth Matter of ATM One v Landaverde , 2 NY3d 472 (2004), requiring the [*2]addition of five days to the 10—day statutory cure period for service by mail of notices to cure a lease violation, should be extended to a notice of nonrenewal in a nonprimary residence proceeding. | 1 | 2 |
61 East 72nd Street Corp. v. Zimberggreen2 sentences2003Corp. v Zimberg , 161 AD2d 542, 543 [1st Dept 1990]). 1991Corp. v Zimberg, 161 AD2d 542 ). | 1 | 2 |
Eaton v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1993(McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 73, 76; Eaton v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 NY2d 340, 345 [1982]; Bender v Jamaica Hosp., 40 NY2d 560, 562 [1976]; Matter of De Peyster, 210 NY 216, 225 [1914]; Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v Crystal & Son, 2 AD2d 37, 39 [1st Dept], affd 2 NY2d 961 [1957].) The Appellate Term, First Department, has recognized that in a nonpayment proceeding involving rent-stabilized premises, "attorney’s fees may not be considered 'rent’ or be awarded as 'additional rent’ in order to enable [a] landlord to obtain a possessory judgment, and [ 1987With respect to tenants’ claims for attorneys’ fees the Court of Appeals remitted to Special Term "for further consideration as to whether the landlord’s refusal to offer renewal leases in rent-stabilized terms constituted a failure to perform a covenant or agreement as is requisite to the application of section 234 of the Real Property Law.” (Supra, at 346.) In Nesbitt and Eaton (supra) the records on appeal reveal that the landlord’s lease clause provided, as in Litchman (supra) and the instant case, for attorneys’ fees in "any action or proceeding”. | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Federation of Orgs. for the N.Y. State Mentally Disabled, Inc. v. Lindsaygreen1 sentence2025Additionally, in Matter of Federation of Orgs. for the N. Y State Mentally Disabled, Inc. v. Lindsay, 2024 NY Slip Op 06124, *1 [1st Dept 2024], the Appellate Division, First Department recently reversed the Appellate Term, First Department and dismissed a summary holdover proceeding upon the holding that "where the landlord serves a default notice providing a cure period and stating that the lease would be terminated upon failure to cure the lease violation, the termination must adhere to the lease procedures that allow the tenant to cure the default as provided in the notice." [Citing Tomfol | 1 | 1 |
Tomfol Owners Corp. v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2024Tomfol Owners Corp. v Hernandez , 201 AD3d 453, 454 [1st Dept 2022]). 2024Tomfol Owners Corp. v Hernandez , 201 AD3d 453, 454 [1st Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Gunthrope-Hardee v. Dormitory Authoritygreen1 sentence2017Seminary of Am. v Fitzer , 258 AD2d 337, 337-338 [1999]; see also Oxford [*2] Towers Co., LLC v Leites , 41 AD3d 144 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
| In re Lonasyellow | 1 | 1 |
| Sohio Petroleum Co. v. Grynberggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Akron Meats, Inc. v. 1418 Kitchens, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. v. Emizack, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mack v. Assessor of Ramapogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waldbaum, Inc. v. Finance Administratorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| EFCO Products v. Cullengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams Press v. State of NYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chimart Associates v. Paulgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nestor v. McDowellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Probst v. . Rochester Steam Laundry Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Long v. . Staffordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. El-Kam Realty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Parkview Associates v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adam's Tower Ltd. Partnership v. Richtergreen | 1 | 1 |
| B & L Realty L. L. C. v. Lianggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
I Bldg, Inc. v. Hong Mei Cheung
green
2 sentences2021Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff's alleged unreasonable withholding of consent to the tenant's proposed assignment of the lease is not a defense available to him under the unconditional and absolute guaranty ( see I Bldg, Inc. v Hong Mei Cheung , 137 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2016]). 2021Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff's alleged unreasonable withholding of consent to the tenant's proposed assignment of the lease is not a defense available to him under the unconditional and absolute guaranty ( see I Bldg, Inc. v Hong Mei Cheung , 137 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2016]). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Ram I, L. L. C. v. Stuart
green
2 sentences2019Vil. v Lewis , 62 NY2d 431 [1984] [identifying the lease clause allegedly violated]; Ram I v Stuart , 248 AD2d 255 [1998] [same]; Marick Real Estate, LLC v Ramirez , 11 Misc 3d 42 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005] [same]). 2000While the dissent is correct in its analysis that entitlement to attorneys’ fees under a lease clause is a matter of contractual right, a court’s authority to withhold fees in a particular case is not so closely confined and may turn upon equitable factors or other considerations fact specific to the litigation (see, e.g., Solow v Bradley, 273 AD2d 75 , revg NYLJ, Aug. 10, 1999, at 22, col 1, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opn of Freedman, J.; RAM I v Stuart, 248 AD2d 255 ; Walentas v Johnes, 257 AD2d 352 ). | 2 | 2000–2019 |
Perrotta v. Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp.
green
2 sentences2014We agree, essentially for reasons stated by Civil Court, that the lease clause at issue, authorizing petitioner landlord, as a successor owner, to “terminate” the governing commercial lease agreement upon 90 days’ notice in the event it “plans to develop a new building,” constituted a conditional limitation (see TSS-Seedman’s, Inc. v Elota Realty Co., 72 NY2d 1024 [1988]; Miller v Levi, 44 NY 489 [1871]; see also 2 Dolan, Rasch’s Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings §§ 23:27, 23:28 [4th ed]), so as to permit resort to an RPAPL article 7 eviction proceeding (see Perrotta v Western Regional 1999Partnership v Jade Sea Rest. 151 Misc 2d 725 [Civ Ct, NY County 1991]; Matter of Ranalli v Burns, 157 AD2d 936 [3d Dept 1990]; Grabino v Howard Stores Corp., 110 Misc 2d 591 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1981].) If the lease clause merely created a condition, a summary proceeding would not lie. (2 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings §§ 23:29, 23:30 [3d ed 1988]; Perrotta v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 98 AD2d 1 [4th Dept 1983].) In New York City, a 30-day notice of termination (also known as a notice to quit) in a holdover case must be served pursuant to RPAPL 735 if | 2 | 1999–2014 |
Daval-Ogden v. Highbridge House Ogden
green
2 sentences2014The limitation of remedy provision in paragraph 23 of the lease did not bar rescission pursuant to Real Property Law § 223-a, despite its “express language to the contrary” purporting to preserve the validity of the lease where the owner fails to timely deliver possession “for any reason,” because such a provision is limited to circumstances beyond the owner’s control and does not govern its intentional acts, such as the instant demolition and renovation (see Matter of Daval-Ogden, LLC v Highbridge House Ogden, LLC, 103 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2013]). 2014The limitation of remedy provision in paragraph 23 of the lease did not bar rescission pursuant to Real Property Law § 223-a, despite its “express language to the contrary” purporting to preserve the validity of the lease where the owner fails to timely deliver possession “for any reason,” because such a provision is limited to circumstances beyond the owner’s control and does not govern its intentional acts, such as the instant demolition and renovation (see Matter of Daval-Ogden, LLC v Highbridge House Ogden, LLC, 103 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2013]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan Farms 2nd, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002We also reject the tenant’s claim that the holdover clause in question constitutes an unenforceable penalty, given no evidence that the projection of a 250% increase in rent was unreasonable, and also given that the premises were in fact rented to a new tenant in an amount approximating a 250% increase (see, Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 424-425 ). 1982(Truck Rent-A-Center v Puritan Farms 2nd, 41 NY2d 420, 424 ; Hankin v Armstrong, NYU, Jan. 20,1982, p 14, col 1 [App Term, 2d Dept].) II The question before this court, as in Weidman v Tomaselli ( 81 Misc 2d 328 , affd 84 Misc 2d 782 ), is the validity of a lease clause, here paragraph 38. | 2 | 1982–2002 |
Post v. 120 East End Avenue Corp.
green
2 sentences1992Corp. ( 62 NY2d 19, 27 ) the Court of Appeals interpreted this provision as: "in effect, authorizing Civil Court at the conclusion of summary proceedings to impose a permanent injunction in favor of the tenant barring forfeiture of the lease for the violation in dispute if the tenant cures within 10 days * * * To this extent the statute limits our holding in First Nat. 1989After the Court of Appeals pointed out the theoretical distinction seized upon by plaintiff, it went on to interpret the legislation "as impressing its terms on residential leases and, in effect, authorizing Civil Court at the conclusion of summary proceedings to impose a permanent injunction in favor of the tenant barring forfeiture of the lease for the violation in dispute if the tenant cures within 10 days” ( 62 NY2d 19, 27 , supra). | 2 | 1989–1992 |
La Vack v. National Shoes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989(La Vack v National Shoes, 124 AD2d 352 [3d Dept 1986].) If the action was brought by the tenant for damages due to the negligence of the landlord, the landlord could not use the indemnification clause of the lease as a defense. 1988Further, it is significant that unlike other lease provisions which have been reviewed by the courts, the lease at bar does not contain an indemnification clause or a provision which prohibits the tenant from asserting direct claims against the landlord premised upon the landlord’s negligence (see e.g., Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., supra, at 156-157; Metropolitan Art Assocs. v Wexler, 118 AD2d 548 ; Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor, 91 AD2d 827 ; cf., La Vack v National Shoes, 124 AD2d 352 ). | 2 | 1988–1989 |
In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1986Co.) ( 51 NY2d 1, 7 ), constitutes a 'condition precedent to arbitration to be complied with’. 1984Co.) ( 51 NY2d 1, 7 ), constitutes a “condition precedent to arbitration to be complied with”. | 2 | 1984–1986 |
First National Stores, Inc. v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center ( 21 NY2d 630 [1968]). 1983Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center, 21 NY2d 630 ). | 2 | 1983–1985 |
Schuller v. D'Angelo
green
2 sentences1984In Schuller v D’Angelo ( 117 Misc 2d 528 ), the prime tenant sought an injunction in which she could toll a lease violation, viz., illegal subletting and claimed that the person occupying her apartment was only a temporary “house guest”. 1984(See Schuller v D’ Angelo, supra.) For example, since RPAPL 753 is limited to “premises in the city of New York occupied for dwelling purposes” it does not bar a tenant from seeking a Yellowstone injunction where the landlord claims that an exclusive commercial use is a lease violation. | 2 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Uddin (Afm)
neutral
1 sentence2025Corp v MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc. , 76 Misc 3d 136 [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Upson v. Oliveira Contr. Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2025Additionally, in Matter of Federation of Orgs. for the N. Y State Mentally Disabled, Inc. v. Lindsay, 2024 NY Slip Op 06124, *1 [1st Dept 2024], the Appellate Division, First Department recently reversed the Appellate Term, First Department and dismissed a summary holdover proceeding upon the holding that "where the landlord serves a default notice providing a cure period and stating that the lease would be terminated upon failure to cure the lease violation, the termination must adhere to the lease procedures that allow the tenant to cure the default as provided in the notice." [Citing Tomfol | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Redbridge Bedford, LLC v. 240 Bedford Ave. Realty Holding Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2021Realty Holding Corp. , 71 Misc 3d 22 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Marick Real Estate, LLC v. Ramirez
neutral
1 sentence2019Vil. v Lewis , 62 NY2d 431 [1984] [identifying the lease clause allegedly violated]; Ram I v Stuart , 248 AD2d 255 [1998] [same]; Marick Real Estate, LLC v Ramirez , 11 Misc 3d 42 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005] [same]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Park West Village v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2019Vil. v Lewis , 62 NY2d 431 [1984] [identifying the lease clause allegedly violated]; Ram I v Stuart , 248 AD2d 255 [1998] [same]; Marick Real Estate, LLC v Ramirez , 11 Misc 3d 42 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005] [same]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hudson Associates v. Benoit
green
1 sentence2016As it was landlord's burden to prove that tenants had failed to cure the alleged lease violation within the cure period as extended ( Hudson Assoc. v Benoit , 226 AD2d 196 [1996]), and as landlord failed to meet this burden, the final judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Soto
green
1 sentence2016Insofar as the facts alleged in tenant's counterclaims may constitute defenses to landlord's claim for rent, and insofar as the counterclaims may be inextricably intertwined with those defenses, they are cognizable in the Justice Court proceeding notwithstanding the lease clause barring counterclaims ( All 4 Sports & Fitness, Inc. v Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enters., Inc. , 22 AD3d at 514 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| TSS-Seedman's, Inc. v. Elota Realty Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Miller v. . Levi green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Ansonia Associates v. Bozza green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Pinciss v. 60 East Equities, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Big \V\" Supermarkets green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Capital Holding Co. v. Stavrolakes neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| LeRoy v. Sayers green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Brandt v. Elghanayan green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Roxborough Apartments Corp. v. Becker neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| PLWJ Realty, Inc. v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Satterwhite v. Hernandez green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Clough v. Szymansk green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Ahmed v. Momart Discount Store, Ltd. neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Congregation Nezach Israel v. ABGG Construction Inc. neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Escalera v. New York Housing Authority green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Fragiacomo v. Pugliese neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Wierzbicki v. Mathew green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| 930 Fifth Corp. v. King green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Canton Human Services Initiatives, Inc. v. Town of Canton green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.