throbber
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket