Charles C. Goldman, LLC v Kassab

[*1] Charles C. Goldman, LLC v Kassab 2014 NY Slip Op 50669(U) Decided on April 24, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 24, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Lowe, III, Shulman, JJ
14-103.

Charles C. Goldman, LLC Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, - -

against

Jack Kassab, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- J.K.Q Inc., Star 5657, Inc., Candido Beato d/b/a Riverdale Beauty Salon and 99¢ USA II, Inc., d/b/a 99¢ or More USA, and "XYZ Corp." Respondents-Undertenants.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Eddie J. McShan, J.), dated August 5, 2013, which granted landlord's motion for summary judgment on its petition and dismissed tenant's counterclaims in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Eddie J. McShan, J.), dated August 5, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Eddie J. McShan, J. at Civil Court.

Summary judgment was properly awarded to landlord on his nonpayment petition. The evidentiary proof submitted by landlord, including its rent ledger, established, prima facie, that the commercial tenant failed to pay the substantial ($360,520.38) rent arrears shown to have been demanded and due (see Crystal Run Newco, LLC v United Pet Supply, Inc., 70 AD3d 1418, 1419, 1420 [2010]). In opposition, tenant's conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue as to the amount of rent arrears owed. Notably, paragraph 10.01(b) of the governing lease agreement expressly authorized landlord to collect rent directly from any subtenants or occupants, and tenant offered no proof tending to show that landlord failed to "apply the net amount collected" from tenant's subtenant to the arrears sought in the petition. Tenant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 24, 2014