Court Opinion

ID: 9916478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:36.731379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.177443
License: Public Domain

700 Eighth Retail Owner LP v RP/HH Milford Plaza
                   Ground Tenant, LP
               2024 NY Slip Op 30020(U)
                     January 3, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650360/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
  Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
   York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 650360/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 83                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                               PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          650360/2023
             700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         12/22/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT, LP, RP/HH
             MILFORD PLAZA RETAIL TENANT, LP, CARE CUBE,                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
             LLC,JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, XYZ ENTITY NOS. 1-3                                                    MOTION

                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
            57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                      Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

            Background

                      This commercial landlord tenant matter concerns three separate leases located in the same

            building owned by plaintiff. One lease was with defendant RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA

            GROUND TENANT, LP (“Ground”) for the food court, another lease concerned a café with

            defendant RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA RETAIL TENANT (“Retail”) and the final lease was also

            between plaintiff and Retail, and covered a gym space. Defendant Care Cube, LLC is allegedly

            an “undertenant” for the café space.

                      Plaintiff acknowledges that it entered into an agreement with Ground and Retail in April

            2023 in which Ground and Retail paid use and occupancy and stipulated that they had vacated

            possession as of March 31, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42).

             650360/2023 700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP vs. RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT,                              Page 1 of 5
             LP ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 650360/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 83                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

                    Plaintiff brings this motion for unpaid rent and additional rent. It observes that it sent

            termination letters for each lease that terminated each one as of December 9, 2022. Plaintiff

            argues that Ground and Retail remained in possession after the termination date and did not

            vacate until March 31, 2023. It claims it is entitled to recover a money judgment for

            $7,236,607.35. Plaintiff also seeks to dismiss each of defendants’ 15 affirmative defenses and

            claims that these defenses are insufficient as a matter of law.

                    In opposition, defendants contend that plaintiff failed to meet its burden on a motion for

            summary judgment. They insist that plaintiff did not submit evidence in admissible form and

            argue that the affidavit of Mr. Brandt did not sufficiently establish anything about plaintiff’s

            record-keeping practices and procedures. Defendants emphasize that Mr. Brandt admits he works

            for a separate entity from plaintiff. They argue that simply having access to such information is

            not adequate to establish a proper foundation.

                    In reply, plaintiff contends that it met its burden in the moving papers to lay a proper

            foundation. It observes that defendants did not question the authenticity of the leases and did not

            submit anything from the defendants themselves in opposition.

            Discussion

                    The only question on this motion is whether plaintiff met its evidentiary burden to

            establish its claims.

                    “To establish a foundation for the admission of a business record, the proponent of
                    the record must satisfy the requirements identified in the statute. First, the
                    proponent must establish “that the record be made in the regular course of
                    business—essentially, that it reflect a routine, regularly conducted business
                    activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of functions of the
                    business. Second, the proponent must also demonstrate that it be the regular course
                    of such business to make the record essentially, that the record be made pursuant to
                    established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record.
                    Third, the proponent must establish that the record be made at or about the time of
                    the event being recorded—essentially, that recollection be fairly accurate and the

             650360/2023 700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP vs. RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT,          Page 2 of 5
             LP ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 650360/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 83                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

                   habit or routine of making the entries assured” (Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon,
                   171 AD3d 197, 205, 97 NYS3d 286 [2d Dept 2019] [internal quotations and
                   citations omitted]).

                   Here, defendants complain about the affidavit of Mr. Brandt (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 53).

            In his affidavit, Mr. Brandt observes that he is “the Vice President of Fund VIII Debt Holdings

            GP LLC, the general partner of plaintiff, 700 Eighth Retail Owner LP (“Landlord”), in this

            action. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth herein” (id. ¶ 1). When referring

            to the ledgers (often the key evidence in a landlord-tenant dispute about unpaid rent), Mr. Brandt

            observes that:

                    “Such ledgers and summaries of real estate tax calculations annexed hereto
                   (collectively, the “Business Records”) were generated by Landlord’s employees
                   and agent(s) entering the charges due under and pursuant to the terms of the three
                   subject leases into Landlord’s computer system that is used to manage Tenants
                   accounts. I have access to those computer records. As such, I am a custodian of the
                   Business Records. The Business Records are true and accurate representations of
                   our electric records. The Business Records were made in the ordinary course of
                   Landlord’s business, it was the regular course of such business to make such
                   records and the charges were posted and entered at or about the date of the
                   transactions set forth therein” (id. n 2).

                   The Court finds that plaintiff easily met its burden in its moving papers. Clearly, Mr.

            Brandt established that the ledgers were created in the landlord’s ordinary course of business and

            that plaintiff relied upon these records when it asked the defendants to pay rent. There is no

            legitimate dispute that landlord regularly used the ledgers to keep a record of the status for each

            of the three leases. And Mr. Brandt demonstrated that the records were generated at the

            appropriate time (i.e., when the rent and other charges came due). He also met his burden to

            show how he gained access to these records and how they are stored.

                   Defendants’ objections to this affidavit do not raise an issue of fact. That Mr. Brandt did

            not expressly use the words “personally” or “reviewed” is not a basis to deny the instant motion

            as this affidavit provides a detailed analysis of the ledgers and their origin. And although

             650360/2023 700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP vs. RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT,         Page 3 of 5
             LP ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 650360/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 83                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            defendants argue that there is some tenuous connection between Mr. Brandt and plaintiff, Mr.

            Brandt observed that he works for an entity that is the general partner of plaintiff. Defendants

            did not explain how this working relationship renders this affidavit as insufficient. That Mr.

            Brandt did not work directly for plaintiff is not fatal (see Gordon, 171 AD3d at 209).

                   Under defendants’ view, plaintiffs would never meet their prima facie burden for the

            submission of business records. Defendants appear to demand a never-ending list of additional

            requirements in order for a landlord to establish that the tenant did not pay the rent. That is

            simply not the law. And, here, defendants did not submit anything from someone with personal

            knowledge in opposition to contest the authenticity of certain documents and raise questions

            about Mr. Brandt’s assertions or ability to lay the proper foundation for these records.

                   Defendants did not contest that they entered into three leases, that they failed to pay the

            rent or even contest the amount plaintiff claims is due. Therefore, the Court grants the motion

            and dismisses the affirmative defenses (as defendants did not address any of these in their

            opposition).

                   Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable legal fees under the terms of the leases. However,

            because plaintiff did not ask for a specific amount or include invoices, if plaintiff wants to pursue

            legal fees, then the Court directs plaintiff to make a motion therefor on or before January 25,

            2024. If a motion is made, the Court will evaluate whether a hearing is necessary.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is granted, defendants’ affirmative defenses are

            severed and dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and

            against defendant RP/HH Milford Plaza Ground Tenant, LP (“Ground”), in the amount of

            $2,957,686.37 and in favor of plaintiff and against defendant RP/HH Milford Plaza Retail

             650360/2023 700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP vs. RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT,         Page 4 of 5
             LP ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 650360/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 83                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            Tenant, LP (“Retail”), in the amount of $4,278,920.98, along with statutory interest for both

            amounts from September 15, 2021 (a reasonable midpoint) along with costs and disbursements

            upon presentation of proper papers therefor; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the issue of reasonable legal fees is severed and plaintiff shall make a

            motion for such fees on or before January 25, 2024.

                     1/3/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      X   GRANTED             DENIED     GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             650360/2023 700 EIGHTH RETAIL OWNER LP vs. RP/HH MILFORD PLAZA GROUND TENANT,         Page 5 of 5
             LP ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]