Nejat v Axiotis

Nejat v Axiotis 2011 NY Slip Op 09036 Decided on December 15, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 15, 2011
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Freedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6370 100840/09

[*1]Morris Nejat, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Constantine A. Axiotis, Defendant-Appellant.




David Arens, New York, for appellant.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New
York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 21, 2010, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on subsection (i) of the first cause of action and on the second and third causes of action, dismissed defendant's affirmative defenses, and denied defendant's cross motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sublessor established prima facie his entitlement to damages for the six-month period during which defendant sublessee remained in the subleased premises as a holdover commercial tenant without paying rent. Article 43 of the lease provides that a holdover sublessee is deemed to be a month-to-month sublessee at a monthly rent equal to twice the rent paid by the sublessee in the month preceding the lease termination date
(see Real Property Law § 232-c; Teri-Nichols Inst. Food Merchants, LLC v Elk Horn Holding Corp., 64 AD3d 424 [2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 904 [2009]; Thirty-Third Equities Co. v Americo Group, 294 AD2d 222 [2002]). Defendant submitted no evidence in support of his argument that he owes no rent because he was fraudulently induced to enter the lease.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK