rent abatement clause in New York

2024The statute of limitations for a rent abatement claim arising out of breach of the warranty of habitability is six years, because the claim is based on a breach of an implied covenant in the contract between the parties, and the statute of limitations for breach of contract under the CPLR is six years (CPLR 213; Whealon v Gramercy Park Residence Corp., 214 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2023]).

2004Tea Co., 46 NY2d at 69 ; LaBarte v Seneca Resources Corp., 285 AD2d at 974-975.) Furthermore, even if petitioners technically might claim respondent’s noncompliance with lease paragraph 28’s mailing requirement, given their undisputed receipt of immediate firsthand as well as written notice, reliance on respondent’s regular rather than registered or certified mailing, to obliterate a substantial rent abatement claim, may have been unjustified.

2004(Chemical Bank v Stahl, 272 AD2d at 14-15 ; Tapps of Nassau Supermarkets v Linden Blvd., 269 AD2d at 307-308 .) Petitioners may not rely on a technical lease provision to insulate them from potential liability for preventing the continued tenancy.

2004(Chemical Bank v Stahl, 272 AD2d at 14-15 ; Tapps of Nassau Supermarkets v Linden Blvd., 269 AD2d at 307-308 .) Petitioners may not rely on a technical lease provision to insulate them from potential liability for preventing the continued tenancy.

2002Also proper was the court’s denial of partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ lost profits claims upon the ground that the rent abatement clause in the subject Lease Amendment constituted a liquidated damages clause precluding plaintiffs from recovering for any delay in reopening their store, since the purported liquidated damages provision does not provide for damages bearing a reasonable relationship to plaintiffs’ losses by reason of the complained of lengthy store closure allegedly attributable to defendants’ negligence (see, BDO Seidman v Hirshberg, 93 NY2d 382, 395 ).

2002Yet, the trial court concluded that the rent abatement clause violated the rule that “[t]here must be some attempt to proportion * * * damages to the actual loss” (see, Seidlitz v Auerbach, 230 NY 167, 174 ), implicitly suggesting that the parties must address separately each possible breach and provide for a penalty, rent abatement or otherwise, proportionate to each possible breach.

1987On appeal, we modified [ 100 AD2d 763 ] to the extent of declaring that, under the rent-abatement clause, plaintiff did not have to pay rent "during a period of construction”.