Rosen v Evolution Holdings, LLC
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 24, 2009
District Court of Nassau County, First District
Leslie Rosen AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WARREN REINER, Petitioner(s)
against
Evolution Holdings, LLC, "XYZ CORP.", Respondent(s).
SP 001255/2009
Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP, Attorney for Respondent, 80 E. Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501, 516-747-5566; Horing, Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Attorney for Petitioner, 11 Hillside Avenue, Williston Park, New York 11596, 516-535-1700.
Scott Fairgrieve, J.
Respondent EVOLUTION HOLDINGS, LLC moves for an order pursuant
to CPLR 3211 (a) dismissing the non-payment proceeding on the grounds that no lease
agreement was ever reached, and there was a failure to properly serve the rent demand.
Petitioner opposes Respondent's motion.
This non-payment proceeding was instituted by service of a Notice of Petition and
Petition by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion on March 2, 2009 returnable in this
court on March 13, 2009. On March 16th 2009, Respondent made the Motion to Dismiss.
In the affidavit in support of the motion, Thomas Cicero, representative for the
Respondent, claims the parties were in the process of negotiating a lease but no agreement was
ever reached due to the failure of the Petitioner to make certain repairs. Around August 5th 2008,
the Respondent faxed a signed lease and rider to the Petitioner on which they had made certain
changes. The Respondent began occupying 4913-15 Merrick Road, Massapequa in August 2008
pursuant to the terms of this lease. Respondent has currently paid over $100,000 to the Petitioner
for the use and occupancy of the space. The Respondent maintains that the payments reflected
the rent minus the cost of the repairs.
First, the Respondent claims that since no binding agreement was reached and the
Petitioner accepted the partial payments the Respondent's obligations were satisfied (even
though this was less than the amount owed under the lease) this proceeding should be dismissed.
In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner attached to its papers a fully executed lease
signed by both parties to demonstrate that a valid lease agreement exists. While claiming that
negotiations were ongoing, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of this and has not
shown a reason why the lease should not be considered final. In addition, David McGinnis, the
managing agent of the Petitioner, swears that he personally discussed the signed lease agreement
with Mr. Cicero. Mr. Cicero has not denied this.
[*2]
As succinctly stated in Stepet Card and Gift,
Inc. v. Matejka (483 NYS2d 76,77 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 1984), 106 AD2d 565, 565), the
existence of a written agreement will be deemed valid and not merely negotiations when the
writing is:
[E]videnced by the unequivocal actions of the parties; that is; entry into possession
and payment of rent by plaintiff and its acceptance by defendants pursuant to the terms of the
challenged lease agreements, and further, by the continued occupancy of the premise by the
plaintiff.
The Respondent admitted in the affidavit that the he began paying rent in return for
use of the property and therefore, using this criterion, it is clear that there was a valid and
binding lease agreement. The Respondent has failed to show any agreement to accept a reduced
rent. Furthermore, Paragraph 24 of the lease states that partial payment will not be deemed:
[A]nything other than on account of the earliest stipulated rent, nor shall any
endorsement or statement of any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment as rent
to be deemed an accord and satisfaction, and Owner may accept any such check or payment
without prejudice to owner's right to recover the balance of such rent. (See Exhibit C of
the Affirmation in Opposition).
It is settled law that "a tenant's duty to
pay rent is not suspended, even if the landlord breaches its obligations under the lease, unless
there is an express provision in the lease declaring the circumstances under which the tenant may
withhold his rent." (Quentin Roosevelt Associates, L.L.C. v. Goldfinger, 2009 WL
1141344 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.)) Similarly in Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company v. Mills
(619 NYS2d 407 (3rd Dept. 1994), 210 AD2d 657), partial payments on a credit card debt
"could not be viewed as an accord or as a substituted agreement" where there was no evidence
that the plaintiff would accept the payments in lieu of defendants original obligation. In the case
at bar there was no evidence that the landlord would be willing to accept the partial payments in
lieu of the rent and therefore the tenant's obligation is not satisfied. This principal is further
illustrated in Citibank v. Maniaci (2009 WL 865605 (N.Y.Dist. Ct.)) where the court
held that the credit card agreement permits the bank to accept partial or late payments without
forfeiting any of their rights under the credit agreement. This is analogous to the case at hand in
which the lease agreement allowed the landlord to accept partial or late payments without
forfeiting their right to sue for the amount due. The Respondent's partial payment does not
constitute an accord and satisfaction of its rental arrears. Therefore, the Petitioner has not waived
the Landlord's right to a nonpayment action by accepting the money paid.
The Petitioner attaches to its motion papers a record of text messages between the
parties to prove the existence of a lease. (See Exhibit D of the Affirmation of
Opposition). Since Respondent failed to contest the validity of the text messages, the same are
deemed admitted. See Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Baide, (36 NY2d 539, 330 NE2d 624)
wherein the court stated: "facts appearing in the movant's papers which the opposing party does
not controvert, may be deemed to be admitted." Respondent failed to submit an affidavit by a
person with knowledge to deny the truth of the text messages.
In People v. Limage (851 NYS2d 852 (Crim. Ct., City of NY, 2008), 9
Misc.3 395)the court [*3]held:
With the advancement of technology, telephones have come to be used for more
than simply placing and receiving calls. They now have the capability of sending and receiving
messages and pictures, accessing the internet, playing music, and much more. The defendant's
suggestion that text messages are brief, easy to ignore, and therefore not as serious as phone
calls, letters or emails, is without merit. On the contrary, text messages are communicated in
writing, just like letters or emails, and access the recipient often instantaneously, like a phone
call directly to the person's cell phone. Additionally, the brevity of a text message has no impact
on the severity of its meaning.
The lease executed by the two parties is
sufficient proof to overcome the motion to dismiss and the language of the text messages further
indicates the existence of a fully executed lease agreement.
Second, the Respondent claims no certified mailing of the "Three Day Notice" was
received and therefore the non-payment proceeding must be dismissed. However, according to
the sworn testimony of Mr. Weiss, the process server, on March 3rd, 2009 he served copies of
the rent demand upon the respondent at the property in question by mailing it at the post office
by certified mail and regular mail in the state of New York. (See Exhibit A of
Affirmation of Opposition) In a nonpayment preceding the landlord may demand the rent from a
tenant by way of a written notice or orally. (Landlord and Tenant Practice in New York,
Daniel Finkelstein and Lucas Ferrara, § 14:16-14:18) However, Paragraph 27 of the Lease
in the case at bar, specifically states that any notice from the landlord to the tenant is sufficient as
long as it is in writing and sent by "registered or certified mail". The Petitioner has gone above
what is required by law and the lease by personally serving an employee of the Respondent with
the rent demand and also having same served by certified and regular mail. (See Exhibit
C of Affirmation of Opposition) Therefore, Petitioner has more than complied with all the
requirements of the RPAPL Section 735 and the lease regarding the service of the Rent Demand.
The facts alleged by the Petitioner demonstrate a cause of action for rent owed and
consequently the motion to dismiss must be denied (Collision Plan Unlimited Inc. v. Bankers
Trust Co., 63 NY2d 827, 482 NYS2d 252 (1984)). Even if the Respondent claims that the
failure of the Petitioner to make repairs is a defense to the non-payment allegations this is only a
possible defense and does not render the entire petition subject to dismissal.
This case is set down for conference/trial for July 6th, 2009 at 11:00.
So Ordered:
/s/ Hon. Scott Fairgrieve
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Dated:June 24, 2009
CC:Ezratty, Ezratty & Leving, LLP
Horing, Welikson & Rosen, P.C.
SF/kf
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
