Source: https://www.alblawfirm.com/published-decisions/221-06-merrick-blvd-associates-llc-v-crescent-electric-acquisition-corporation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:19:14+00:00

Document:
IN RE: 221-06 Merrick Blvd. Associates, LLC, petitioner-respondent, v. Crescent Electric Acquisition Corporation, appellant, et al., respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. THOMAS A. DICKERSON PLUMMER E. LOTT SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. Jaffe, Ross & Light, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Burton R. Ross and Bill S. Light of counsel), for appellant. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey R. Metz and Courtney Killelea of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
In a summary holdover proceeding, the tenant, Crescent Electric Acquisition Corporation, appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term, Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated July 14, 2009, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered March 31, 2008, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition.
A notice exercising an option to renew a lease is ineffective if it is not given within the time specified (see Dan’s Supreme Supermarkets v Redmont Realty Co., 216 A.D.2d 512; Souslian Wholesale Beer & Soda v 380-4 Union Ave. Realty Corp., 166 A.D.2d 435, 437; see also J.N.A. Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 N.Y.2d 392, 396-397; Sy Jack Realty Co. v. Pergament Syosset Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 449, 452). Equity will intervene, however, to relieve a tenant of the consequences of an untimely notice of an option to renew a lease where (1) the tenant’s failure to exercise the option in a timely fashion resulted from an honest mistake or inadvertence, (2) the nonrenewal of the lease would result in a substantial forfeiture by the tenant, and (3) the landlord would not be prejudiced by the renewal (see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 N.Y.2d at 399-400; Sy Jack Realty Co. v. Pergament Syosset Corp., 27 N.Y.2d at 452-453; Nanuet Nat. Bank v. Saramo Holding Co., 153 A.D.2d 927, 928; Mass Props. Co. v. 1820 N.Y. Ave. Corp., 152 A.D.2d 727, 728-729; Tritt v. Huffman & Boyle Co., 121 A.D.2d 531, 532).
Here, the tenant, Crescent Electric Acquisition Corporation (hereinafter the tenant), failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to equitable renewal of the lease. While the failure to timely exercise the option to renew the lease may have been inadvertent, the tenant has not established that a substantial forfeiture would result if equitable renewal was not granted or that the landlord would not be prejudiced by the renewal (cf. Popyork, LLC v. 80 Ct. St. Corp., 23 AD3d 538, 539; Bench ‘N’ Gavel Rest. v. Time Equities, 169 A.D.2d 755, 757; Souslian Wholesale Beer & Soda v 380-04 Union Ave. Realty Corp., 166 A.D.2d at 437; Nanuet Nat. Bank v. Saramo Holding Co., 153 A.D.2d at 928; Mass Props. Co. v. 1820 N.Y. Ave. Corp., 152 A.D.2d at 729).
The tenant’s remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
Acquisition Corporation, appellant, et al., respondents.
Motion by the petitioner, inter alia, to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Term, Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated July 14, 2009, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 1, 2010, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
ORDERED that the motion is denied.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.