APF 286 MAD, LLC v Chittur & Assoc., P.C.

[*1] APF 286 MAD, LLC v Chittur & Assoc., P.C. 2016 NY Slip Op 50003(U) Decided on January 4, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 4, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570807/15

APF 286 MAD, LLC, GAN 286 Madison, LLC, and 286 Madison Associates, LLC, Petitioners-Landlords- Cross-Appellants, -

against

Chittur & Associates, P.C., Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, - and - XYZ, Inc., Respondent.

Tenant, as limited by its briefs, appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2014, after a hearing, which awarded landlords $142,841.15 in rent, additional rent, use and occupancy and legal fees, (2) an order (same court and Judge), entered on or about February 10, 2014, which awarded landlord interest in the amount of $14,761.88, and (3) an amended final judgment (same court and Judge), entered February 25, 2014, awarding landlords a recovery of $157,603.04 in a commercial holdover proceeding. Landlords cross appeal from so much of the February 25, 2014 amended final judgment and January 15, 2014 order which denied them holdover rent for the period May 1, 2012 through November 30, 2012.

Per Curiam.

Amended final judgment (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered February 25, 2014, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Jennifer G. Schecter, J. at Civil Court. Appeals from orders (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered, respectively, January 15, 2014 and February 10, 2014, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the amended final judgment.

Civil Court correctly concluded that landlords were entitled to rent, additional rent, use and occupancy, and interest for the period the commercial tenant remained in possession of the premises, and the court's detailed calculation of the amounts due was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Landlords were also entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to Paragraph 19 of the lease, and the amount of the fee award was within reasonable limits and is not disturbed (see 542 East 14th St. LLC v Lee, 66 AD3d 18, 24 [2009].

The record discloses no evidentiary errors. The computer printouts from landlords' electronic database were properly admitted as business records, since landlords established that the information contained therein, regarding the rent and additional rent owed by tenant, was entered into the computer in the regular course of landlords' business (see CPLR 4518; Federal Express Corp. v Federal Jeans, Inc., 14 AD3d 424 [2005]). Tenant's best evidence rule objection is unavailing (see generally Briar Hill Apts. Co. v Teperman, 165 AD2d 519, 521-522 [1991]; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4539).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 04, 2016