Court Opinion

ID: 9945536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:19.916363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.399219
License: Public Domain

Popcorn & Soda Assets LLC v New York CI LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30555(U)
                   February 21, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652468/2023
                  Judge: Lyle E. Frank
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.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                                       INDEX NO. 652468/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LYLE E. FRANK                                                  PART                             11M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          652468/2023
             POPCORN & SODA ASSETS LLC
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE         10/05/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 - V -

             NEW YORK Cl LLC,                                                                          DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
            17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 34, 35, 36,37, 38,39
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                      Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.

            Background

                      Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for alleged unpaid rent pursuant to a

            commercial lease agreement. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is

            no genuine issue of material fact demonstrated by the non-moving party. Defendants oppose the

            instant motion.

                      Plaintiff is the owner of a commercial building located at 267-273 West 22nd Street and

            256-262 West 23rd Street, New York, New York 10011. The original lease was entered into on

            November 1, 1986, between plaintiff landlord's predecessor and defendant tenant's predecessor.

            The lease was thereafter assigned to plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant, respectively.

            The lease was amended on February 28, 2012 and on April 1, 2020 for a term ending October

            31, 2027. Defendant was evicted from the Premises on April 6, 2023, pursuant to a final

           judgment of possession and warrant of eviction issued to Landlord in a summary nonpayment

            proceeding in New York City Civil Court.
             652468/2023 POPCORN & SODA ASSETS LLC vs. NEW YORK Cl LLC                                                   Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 001

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                INDEX NO. 652468/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

                   Plaintiff seeks $2,561,269.96 in liquidated damages for arrears, real estate taxes, late

            charges and billbacks. Plaintiff alleges as of the date of Tenant's eviction from the Premises,

            Tenant owed Rent of $1,806,672.11 yet is now liable for rent and additional rent and liquidated

            damages of $2,561,269.96 through October 2023. Defendants' affirmative defenses and

            counterclaims assert plaintiff is not liable as Landlord was obligated to provide tenant quiet

            enjoyment of the premises and failed to do so because the foundation of the premises was

            damages or structurally unsound.

                   It is a well-established principle that the "function of summary judgment is issue finding,

            not issue determination." Assaf v Ropog Cab Corp., 153 AD2d 520, 544 [1st Dept 1989]. As

            such, the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence to show

            the absence of any material issue of fact and the right to entitlement to judgment as a matter of

            law. Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320,501 [1986]; Winegradv New York University

            Medical Center, 64 NY 2d 851 [1985]. Courts have also recognized that summary judgment is a

            drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court. Therefore, the party opposing a

            motion for summary judgment is entitled to all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the

            evidence submitted.

                   Plaintiffs main argument in support of its motion, is the unambiguous language of the

            lease. In opposition, defendant argues plaintiff's motion is premature as discovery has not been

            conducted and further that plaintiffs claims are barred by res judicata.

                   Primarily, the Court rejects defendant's argument that plaintiff's claim is barred by res

           judicata. Res judicata applies only when a claim between the parties has been previously 'brought

            to a final conclusion." (Simmons v. Trans Express Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 107 [2021]). Here, defendant

            did not appear in the nonpayment proceeding and damages were not an adjudicated issue. As

             652468/2023 POPCORN & SODA ASSETS LLC vs. NEW YORK Cl LLC                            Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 652468/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

            such, plaintiff's claims are not barred by res judicata, as the merits of plaintiff's damages were

            not directly litigated between the parties.

                    As to defendants' contention that it is excused from its obligations under the lease

            because plaintiff is responsible for of the defective conditions of the premises, the Court rejects

            this argument as contrary to the plain language of the lease. Article 12.4 of the lease provides

            that maintenance and repair of the building's foundation is tenant's obligation. Defendants'

            allegations that "the foundation of the premises was damaged or structurally unsound" thus fall

            squarely under Section 12.4 of the lease. While defendant argues plaintiff has violated Article 25

            of the lease entitling it to quiet enjoyment of the premises, defendant has failed to allege such

            conduct. Defendants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses rely on this contention and are

            therefore dismissed.

                    The Court finds that the unambiguous and undisputed language of the lease and the

            undisputed fact that defendant ceased paying rent as was evicted is sufficient to establish

            plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant has failed to raise a

            triable issue of fact. The defendant's conclusory and non-specific arguments that more discovery

            is needed are unavailing.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby,

                    ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted as to liability; and it

            is further

                    ORDERED that an assessment of damages against defendant is directed, and it is further

                    ORDERED that a copy of this order with notice of entry be served by the movant upon the

            Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who is directed, upon the filing of a note of issue and a

             652468/2023 POPCORN & SODA ASSETS LLC vs. NEW YORK Cl LLC                             Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
 !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04: 57 PM!                                                 INDEX NO. 652468/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

            certificate of readiness and the payment of proper fees, if any, to place this action on the

            appropriate trial calendar for the assessment hereinabove directed; and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall be made

            in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk

            Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's

            website.

                    2/21/2024
                       DATE                                                       LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART            □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT      □ REFERENCE

             652468/2023 POPCORN & SODA ASSETS LLC vs. NEW YORK Cl LLC                               Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]