`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`DR. SMOOD NEW YORK LLC F/K/A DR. SMOOD
`ORCHARD LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ORCHARD HOUSTON, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No.: 652812/2020
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Plaintiff designates New York County as
`the place of trial.
`
`Basis of Venue: This action will affect the
`possession, use, and/or enjoyment of
`property situated in New York County.
`
`
`
`
`
`TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:
`
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Amended Verified Complaint in this
`
`action and to serve a copy of your answer upon Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after
`
`service of the summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is
`
`complete if this summons is not personally served upon you within the State of New York); and
`
`should you fail to appear or answer within the specified time period, judgment will be taken against
`
`you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`September 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRONSTER LLP
`
`By ___/s/ Alexandra C. Mink ___________________
`
`Alexandra C. Mink, Esq.
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`156 West 56th Street, Suite 902
`
`
`New York, New York 10019
`
`Tel.:
`(212) 558-9300
`
`Direct: (347) 246-4875
`
`Email: amink@bronsterllp.com
`
`1 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`TO:
`
`Orchard Houston, LLC
`c/o S&H Equities NY Inc.
`98 Cutter Mill Road
`Great Neck, New York 11021
`pearl@sh-nyc.com
`amir@sh-nyc.com
`
`Mark Mermel, Esq.
`Attorney for Defendant
`Mermel Associates PLLC
`One Hollow Lane
`Suite 303
`Lake Success, New York 11042
`mark@mermellaw.com
`
`
`
`2 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`Index No.: 652812/2020
`
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff designates New York County as
`the place of trial. The basis of venue is that
`this action will affect the possession, use,
`and/or enjoyment of real property situated
`in New York County.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`DR. SMOOD NEW YORK LLC F/K/A DR. SMOOD
`ORCHARD LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ORCHARD HOUSTON, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Dr. Smood New York LLC f/k/a Dr. Smood Orchard LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and
`
`through its attorneys, Bronster LLP, as and for its Complaint against defendant, Orchard Houston,
`
`LLC (“Defendant” or “Landlord”) alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action seeking, inter alia, injunctive and declaratory relief under New
`
`York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §3001 arising out of Defendant’s
`
`improper attempt to hold Plaintiff in default and draw down upon Plaintiff’s
`
`security deposit , and possibly terminate its lease (defined below) with Plaintiff for
`
`allegedly failing to make certain rent payments in the midst of the COVID-19
`
`pandemic, as set forth in a purported notice to cure dated September 3, 2020 (the
`
`“Notice to Cure”).
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Contrary to the allegations in the Notice to Cure, Plaintiff is not in default of the
`
`Lease and does not owe the rental amounts claimed therein.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff does not owe rent as claimed by Defendant under the doctrine
`
`of frustration of purpose of the Lease; by operation of the casualty clause in
`
`Plaintiff’s lease; and as a result of Plaintiff’s on-going legal obligation to comply
`
`3 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`with state and local governmental regulations concerning public safety during the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic, which event was unforeseeable and not contemplated under
`
`the lease at the time the parties entered into the agreement.
`
`Additionally, as the underlying purpose of the lease agreement has been so
`
`frustrated by the unforeseeable outbreak of the novel coronavirus and the
`
`government’s response to it, namely through New York State’s executive orders,
`
`the lease agreement is void and terminable at the Plaintiff’s option.
`
`Further, the Defendant owes Plaintiff a rent credit in the amount of $16,621.90 for
`
`rent that was overpaid during the period of time between March 16, 2020 and March
`
`31, 2020.
`
`Defendant is engaged in commercial tenant harassment since Defendant is aware
`
`that Plaintiff is a commercial tenant directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,
`
`which harassment is in violation of the Administrative Code of the City of New
`
`York.
`
`Lastly, Defendant, by its actions, has breached the implied covenant of good faith
`
`and fair dealing. Insofar as Plaintiff elects to not terminate the lease agreement, the
`
`remaining rent structure should be revised to reflect the continued effects of the
`
`global health emergency and its real and tangible impact on the viability of
`
`Plaintiff’s business purpose under the lease.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is a New York limited liability company authorized to do business in the
`
`State of New York and having a place of business in the City, County, and State of
`
`New York.
`
`4 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is a New York limited liability company
`
`authorized to do business in the State of New York and having a place of business
`
`in Nassau County in the State of New York.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is the landlord of the premises described
`
`as a portion of the ground floor and basement space of the building located at 181-
`
`185 East Houston a/k/a 195-201 Orchard Street, New York, New York (the
`
`“Premises”).
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to the lease (as defined more particularly infra), Plaintiff is the commercial
`
`tenant of the Premises.
`
`Thus, jurisdiction is proper under CPLR §302(a)(4), and venue is proper in New
`
`York County pursuant to CPLR §507.
`
`THE LEASE
`
`Plaintiff became the tenant of the Premises pursuant to a ten (10) year lease
`
`agreement executed on February 22, 2017 by and between Defendant, as landlord,
`
`and Plaintiff, as tenant (the “Lease”). A copy of the Lease is annexed hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff has invested over $500,000.00 in the buildout and development of the
`
`Premises for its business purpose and employs twelve (12) individuals in its
`
`business. Plaintiff operates the Premises, in strict compliance with the express
`
`purpose of the Lease, as a full-service café that offers healthy, raw, and organic
`
`food and beverage products for on-premises dining. The Plaintiff’s business was
`
`5 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`fully operational at the time that the COVID-19 pandemic struck New York in early
`
`2020.
`
`THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
`
`15.
`
`In March 2020, New York State catalogued its first known cases of the novel
`
`coronavirus known as COVID-19, an event which has since risen to the level of a
`
`global pandemic. As of the date of this filing, more than thirty thousand (30,000)
`
`people have died from COVID-19 in New York State alone, and the global death
`
`toll numbers over half a million souls.
`
`16.
`
`In response to the severity of this deadly crisis, New York State Governor Andrew
`
`Cuomo issued a series of executive orders (the “Executive Orders”) which, among
`
`other things, declared a state disaster emergency for the entire state of New York
`
`(“Executive Order No. 202”); mandated that restaurants and bars cease serving
`
`patrons food or beverage on-premises from March 16, 2020 onward (“Executive
`
`Order No. 202.3”); ordered all businesses to utilize work from home procedures if
`
`possible and to reduce the in-person workforce at any work location by 100% from
`
`March 22, 2020 onward (“Executive Order No. 202.8”); canceled all gatherings of
`
`non-essential individuals of any size, for any reason (“Executive Order No.
`
`202.10”); declared that the operation of a type of facility or occupancy of any space
`
`by more than the number of persons allowed by executive order be deemed a
`
`violation of law (“Executive Order No. 202.11”); which restrictions were extended
`
`until May 15, 2020 (“Executive Order No. 202.18”); and then further extended until
`
`June 7, 2020 (“Executive Order No. 202.29”). The executive orders collectively
`
`came to be described as part of the “NYS on PAUSE” program, the restrictions of
`
`6 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`which were to be phased out as regions met certain public health metrics
`
`(“Executive Order No. 202.31”). Copies of the Executive Orders are annexed
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Neither the COVID-19 pandemic nor the resultant Executive Orders were
`
`anticipated by the parties or addressed in the Lease.
`
`In compliance with the above-referenced Executive Orders and the PAUSE
`
`program, Plaintiff, like other similar establishments in New York City, shuttered
`
`its doors on March 16, 2020, after having paid the full rent for that month.
`
`NOTICE TO CURE
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff initiated conversations with the Landlord both via text message and over
`
`the phone in March, April, and May to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on
`
`Plaintiff’s business obligations under the Lease as well as the steps Plaintiff was
`
`taking to mitigate that impact (such as applying for federal aid under the Paycheck
`
`Protection Program).
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`In June 2020, Plaintiff and Landlord engaged in settlement discussions to
`
`potentially revise the rental obligations under the Lease, given the effect of the
`
`Pandemic on possible performance thereof.
`
`Despite these good faith efforts and the fact that Plaintiff is still currently prohibited
`
`by state and local law from operating its business in compliance with the restrictive
`
`covenants of the Lease, on July 1, 2020, Landlord served the Plaintiff with a Notice
`
`to Cure, declaring Plaintiff in default of the Lease for failure to pay rent for the
`
`months of April 2020, May 2020, and June 2020.
`
`7 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`22.
`
`The Notice stated that, if Plaintiff failed to cure the default at the end of the
`
`expiration period (July 10, 2020), Landlord would draw upon Plaintiff’s security
`
`deposit under the Lease and “take whatever legal steps are necessary” to protect its
`
`rights under the Lease. See a copy of the first Notice to Cure annexed hereto as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`23.
`
`In response to the Notice to Cure, Plaintiff filed an order to show cause seeking, a
`
`Yellowstone injunction and related relief, while the court determined the merits of
`
`Plaintiff’s underlying declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff and Defendant later
`
`stipulated to withdraw the first Notice to Cure and the first order to show cause in
`
`an effort to settle the matter outside of court.
`
`Thereafter, Landlord served the Plaintiff with a second Notice to Cure, declaring
`
`Plaintiff in default of the Lease for failure to pay rent for the months of April 2020,
`
`May 2020, June 2020, July 2020, August 2020, and September 2020.
`
`The Notice stated that, if Plaintiff failed to cure the default at the end of the
`
`expiration period (September 16, 2020), Landlord would move to recover
`
`possession of the Premises, draw upon Plaintiff’s security deposit under the Lease,
`
`and “take whatever legal steps are necessary” to protect its rights under the Lease.
`
`See a copy of the second Notice to Cure annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`Defendant effectively seeks to force Plaintiff to break mandatory local and state
`
`laws to effectuate the purpose of the Lease.
`
`Plaintiff now moves this Court for relief from the prospect of immediate and
`
`irreparable harm from this Defendant.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`8 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEFAULTED AS NEW YORK LAW HAS FRUSTRATED THE
`
`BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE LEASE
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff is not in default of the Lease at issue because the government’s response
`
`to the coronavirus pandemic has frustrated the purpose of the Lease.
`
`29.
`
`The express purpose of the Lease is to operate “a full service café specializing in
`
`fresh and raw quick-service products with menu items to include breakfast, lunch,
`
`and dinner, coffee and tea beverages, cold-pressed juices, shakes and smoothies,
`
`and other related products.” Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Lease limits the “Permitted
`
`Uses” of the Premises, stating that “Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for
`
`the Permitted Uses and for no other purpose” Article 26.2, Section 26.2 describes
`
`Tenant’s Operating Covenants, explaining in pertinent part that “Tenant covenants
`
`and agrees that it will, at its sole cost and expense:…(d) Occupy the entire Premises
`
`and keep the entire Premises open for business, sufficiently staffed and stocked
`
`from at least 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. Monday through and including Friday, and
`
`during hours to be reasonably defined by the Tenant based on actual foot traffic
`
`during the weekend” (the “Permitted Use”). See Exhibit A.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`The Premises could only be operated according to the express terms of the Lease.
`
`The Executive Orders make it abundantly clear that the Plaintiff was legally
`
`prohibited from operating the Premises according to those terms from March 16,
`
`2020 through and including July 6, 2020.
`
`32.
`
`Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s response to it were completely
`
`unforeseeable and unprecedented in modern history.
`
`9 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff’s business, as described in the Lease, is not one in which outdoor dining
`
`or food delivery is possible. Moreover, though Plaintiff’s business can resume for
`
`limited capacity, it is still not fully operational at 100% capacity—required by
`
`Section 26.2 of the Lease—and still cannot offer on-premises dining.
`
`34.
`
`The law has frustrated and continues to frustrate the purpose of Plaintiff’s lease,
`
`both excusing Plaintiff’s non-performance of its obligations thereunder and
`
`entitling Plaintiff to terminate the Lease at its option.
`
`PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEFAULTED AS THE RENT IS ABATED UNDER THE LEASE
`
`35.
`
`The Lease, by its terms, clearly indicates that the rent is abated throughout the
`
`duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and the length of time Plaintiff is prevented
`
`from accessing and/or using the entire Premises for its business purpose.
`
`36.
`
`Article 11, Section 11.3 of the Lease states that “if the Premises are damaged by
`
`fire or other casualty, or if the Building is damaged such that Tenant is deprived
`
`of reasonable access to the Premises…Fixed Rent, Tenant’s Tax Payment and
`
`Tenant’s Operating Payment shall be reduced in the proportion by which the area
`
`of the part of the Premises which is not usable (or accessible) and is not used by
`
`Tenant bears to the total area of the Premises.” See Exhibit A (emphasis added).
`
`37.
`
`The casualty triggering Section 11.3 of the Lease began on or about March 16,
`
`2020, when, pursuant to the Executive Orders previously discussed herein, Plaintiff
`
`was legally forced to close its business due to the property and physical damage
`
`caused by the COVID-19 virus and the dangerous propensity such virus poses to
`
`the public.
`
`10 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`38.
`
`On March 16, 2020, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio specifically noted the
`
`“property damage and loss” caused by the novel coronavirus. As of May 22, 2020,
`
`the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) has maintained that
`
`“it may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object
`
`that has the virus on it.” See a copy of the CDC Media Statement annexed hereto
`
`as Exhibit E.
`
`39.
`
`As a result of both the COVID-19 pandemic and the responsive government
`
`regulations, Plaintiff was unable to use or access the entire Premises from March
`
`16, 2020 until July 6, 2020 and can only use a portion of the Premises since July 6,
`
`2020.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff cannot be in default for not paying rent for the months alleged by the
`
`Defendant as the rent was contractually abated during that time under the terms of
`
`the Lease.
`
`DEFENDANT OWES PLAINTIFF A RENT CREDIT
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff paid the entirety of the rent for March 2020 when it was only able to access
`
`and use the Premises for part of the month.
`
`Rent was only due and owing to Defendant through March 16, 2020, the date on
`
`which Plaintiff incurred the casualty.
`
`As a result, the Defendant actually owes the Plaintiff a rent credit for the dates of
`
`March 16, 2020 through and including March 31, 2020 in the amount of
`
`$16,621.90.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment – No Default)
`
`11 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
`
`“43” above as if set forth at length herein.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Notice to Cure is a predicate to the Defendant’s
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`rights upon default of the Lease, including termination thereof.
`
`Plaintiff disputes that it is in default under the Lease as alleged in the Notice to
`
`Cure.
`
`On or about March 16, 2020, Plaintiff incurred a casualty triggering the casualty
`
`clause of the Lease and abating rent until such casualty is remediated and Plaintiff
`
`can resume business operations in accordance with the restrictive covenants of the
`
`Lease.
`
`By operation of the aforementioned casualty clause set forth in the Lease, Plaintiff
`
`is not required to pay rent during the time the Premises is affected by the casualty.
`
`Upon information and belief and as described in the Notice to Cure, Defendant
`
`disputes that it is prohibited from taking action with respect to the Lease, such as
`
`drawing upon the security deposit or possibly terminating the Lease for a purported
`
`default.
`
`Plaintiff is ready, willing, and able to cure any default under the Lease as alleged
`
`in the Notice to Cure, to the extent that this Court finds any existing default.
`
`Upon information and belief and as described in the Notice to Cure, Defendant
`
`intends to hold Plaintiff in default and improperly remove Plaintiff’s security
`
`deposit, among other actions, as of September 16, 2020.
`
`52.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties.
`
`12 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`53.
`
`A judicial determination of the rights and obligations of the parties is necessary in
`
`order that such rights and obligations may be determined and adjudged without
`
`Plaintiff incurring the danger of losing its valuable leasehold interest and business
`
`assets by Defendant taking action with respect to the Lease, including, but not
`
`limited to, drawing down on Plaintiff’s security deposit and possibly terminating
`
`the Lease.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, the Court should declare the rights and obligations of
`
`the parties and the nature of the relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment – Rent Credit)
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
`
`“55” above as if set forth at length herein.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Given the casualty event of March 16, 2020, Plaintiff is entitled to a rent credit in
`
`the amount of $16,621.90 for the overpayment of rent in the month of March 2020.
`
`Defendant has failed to give Plaintiff the rent credit to which it is entitled.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s entitlement to this rent
`
`credit.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties.
`
`A judicial determination is necessary as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to a rent
`
`credit in the amount of $16,621.90.
`
`By reason of the forgoing, the Court should declare whether Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`a rent credit in the amount of $16,621.90.
`
`13 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment – Frustration of Purpose)
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
`
`“63” above as if set forth at length herein.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff’s Lease requires Plaintiff to operate as a full-service café with on-premises
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`dining at 100% capacity.
`
`The state and local governmental orders pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic
`
`have wholly frustrated the purpose of the Lease.
`
`Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the responsive governmental measures are
`
`totally unprecedented and were not foreseeable events contemplated by the parties
`
`upon entering into the lease.
`
`Plaintiff could not have legally operated its full-service café with on-premises
`
`dining at 100% capacity from March 16, 2020 through July 6, 2020 as a result of
`
`the state and local restrictions.
`
`At the present moment and for the foreseeable future, governmental restrictions still
`
`preclude the operation of Plaintiff’s business according to the express terms of the
`
`Lease, as Plaintiff is prohibited from offering on-premises dining at 100% capacity
`
`of the Premises. Indeed, Plaintiff will only able to resume operation at 25% capacity
`
`on September 30, 2020 well after the time in which this Defendant would render
`
`irreparable harm to Plaintiff by drawing down on its security deposit and
`
`terminating its Lease.
`
`14 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`70.
`
`The law has frustrated the purpose of the Lease to such extent that it has rendered
`
`the Lease void and terminable at Plaintiff’s option. As a result, Plaintiff can
`
`terminate the Lease at its option without penalty or forfeiture of any of its rights,
`
`such as the surrender of the security deposit.
`
`71.
`
`Alternatively, the law’s frustration of the purpose of the Lease excuses Plaintiff for
`
`the non-performance of its obligations thereunder, namely, the payment of rent.
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant disputes that the governmental measures
`
`have frustrated the purpose of the Lease, that Plaintiff’s obligations thereunder as
`
`excused as a result of such frustration, and/or that the total frustration renders the
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`Lease void and terminable at the option of the Plaintiff.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties.
`
`A judicial determination is necessary as to whether such frustration of the Lease
`
`purpose renders the Lease void and terminable at the option of the Plaintiff and/or
`
`as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to a rent abatement for the period of time it is
`
`subject to governmental prohibitions that frustrate the underlying purpose of the
`
`Lease.
`
`75.
`
`By reason of the forgoing, the Court should declare whether Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`terminate the Lease and/or a rent abatement for the period of time it is subject to
`
`governmental prohibitions that frustrate the underlying purpose of the Lease.
`
`AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good faith and Fair Dealing)
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
`
`“75” above as if set forth at length herein.
`
`15 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`77.
`
`The Lease imposes on Defendant an implied obligation to act in good faith and deal
`
`fairly with the Plaintiff in connection with the Lease and the performance of
`
`obligations thereunder.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant has not only refused to meaningfully respond to Plaintiff’s good faith
`
`settlement attempts but has frivolously and improperly served the Notice to Cure
`
`to Plaintiff, demanding money and remedies to which it is not entitled.
`
`Defendant has refused to consider the revision of the remaining rent structure to
`
`reflect the continued effects of the global health emergency and its real and tangible
`
`impact on the viability of Plaintiff’s business purpose under the lease
`
`Defendant has forced Plaintiff to turn to this Court for relief, knowing full well that
`
`it a business already facing severe financial hardship as a direct result of the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`In doing so, it has acted in bad faith and breached its obligation to deal fairly with
`
`Plaintiff, a covenant to which it is implicitly subject under the Lease agreement.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`By reason of the forgoing, Defendant should be preliminarily and permanently
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`enjoined from engaging in such bad faith conduct.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Violation of NYC Administrative Code § 22-902)
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” through
`
`“83” above as if set forth at length herein.
`
`16 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`85.
`
`Defendant’s issuance of the Notice to Cure is an act that would reasonably cause
`
`Plaintiff to vacate the property or surrender or waive any rights under a lease or
`
`other rental agreement.
`
`86.
`
`Defendant’s issuance of the Notice to Cure is also in violation of the May 13, 2020
`
`Amendment to NYC Administrative Code § 22-902 as Plaintiff is a business
`
`impacted by COVID-19.
`
`87.
`
`Defendant’s harassing behaviors are compounded by Defendant’s refusal to
`
`communicate meaningfully with Plaintiff regarding the implications of the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic on the Lease and forcing Plaintiff to seek court intervention
`
`during this national emergency.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff is granted the right to bring a private cause of action for commercial tenant
`
`harassment pursuant to NYC Administrative Code § 22-903.
`
`By reason of the forgoing, a civil penalty should be imposed on Defendant in an
`
`amount not less than $10,000.00 and not more than $50,000.00.
`
`By reason of the forgoing, and specifically pursuant to NYC Administrative Code
`
`§ 22-903(a)(3), the Court should award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and
`
`court costs in connection with this application, along with any other and further
`
`relief the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`A. On the First Cause of Action: (i) declaring that (a) Plaintiff has not breached the Lease
`
`and is not in default of the Lease as alleged in the Notice to Cure and (b) Defendant
`
`cannot draw upon the security deposit or terminate the Lease based upon the Notice
`
`to Cure or the grounds alleged therein; (ii) restraining and enjoining Defendant
`
`17 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`from (a) taking any action to draw upon the security deposit or terminate the Lease
`
`based on the Notice to Cure or (b) instituting any actions or proceedings against
`
`Plaintiff based on the Notice to Cure; or in the alternative, (a) declaring that, if there
`
`has been a breach of the Lease, Plaintiff should be afforded reasonable opportunity
`
`to cure said breach; and (b) extending the time by which Plaintiff may cure any
`
`breach found by the Court to such further time as the Court may direct in order to
`
`permit Plaintiff to cure said breach;
`
`B. On the Second Cause of Action, declaring that Plaintiff is entitled to a rent credit in the
`
`amount of $16,621.90;
`
`C. On the Third Cause of Action, (i) declaring that, because of the law’s frustration of
`
`purpose of the Lease, the Lease is void and terminable at the Plaintiff’s option,
`
`and/or (ii) declaring that Plaintiff’s rent obligation is suspended and Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to a rent abatement for the period of time during which the relevant
`
`governmental restrictions legally prohibit the operation of Plaintiff’s business as
`
`contemplated under the Lease;
`
`D. On the Fourth Cause of Action, enjoining the Defendant from engaging in bad faith
`
`conduct in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to which
`
`it is subject under the Lease;
`
`E. On the Fifth Cause of Action, (i) imposing a civil penalty on Defendant in an amount
`
`to be determined by the Court, which shall not be less than $10,000.00 and not more
`
`than $50,000.00 and (ii) awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees, costs, and
`
`disbursements in connection with this action in an amount to be determined by the
`
`Court; and
`
`18 of 19
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`INDEX NO. 652812/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2020
`
`F. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`September 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRONSTER LLP
`
`
`By ___/s/ Alexandra C. Mink___________________
`
`Alexandra C. Mink, Esq.
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`156 West 56th Street, Suite 902
`
`
`New York, New York 10019
`
`Tel.:
`(212) 558-9300
`
`Direct: (347) 246-4875
`
`Email: amink@bronsterllp.com
`
`19 of 19
`
`