MSMC Residential Realty, LLC v CP at Madison Ave., Inc., a NY Corp.

[*1] MSMC Residential Realty, LLC v CP at Madison Ave., Inc., a NY Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 50854(U) Decided on June 4, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
14-143

MSMC Residential Realty, LLC, a New York limited liability 571021/13 company, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,

against

CP at Madison Avenue, Inc., a New York Corporation, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, - and - "John Doe" 1-3 and/or "Jane Doe" 1-3, Respondents-Undertenants.

Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered August 28, 2013, which, upon an order granting landlord's motion for summary judgment, awarded landlord possession and a recovery of rent arrears in the principal sum of $234,299.97, in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Andrea Masley, J.), entered August 28, 2013, affirmed, with $25 costs, for the reasons stated by Andrea Masley, J. at Civil Court.

Landlord's alleged failure to substantially complete the work set forth on the "punch list" made part of the governing commercial lease agreement is no defense to the landlord's rent claim. It is undisputed that tenant did not terminate the lease within six months of the lease date, a contingency which the parties agreed would be the "sole and exclusive remedy" in the event landlord failed to "substantially complete" the agreed upon work (see Diplomat Props., L.P. v Komar Five Assoc., LLC, 72 AD3d 596 [2010]; Foot Locker Stores, Inc. v Pyramid Mgt. Group, Inc., 45 AD3d 1447 [2007]). "Absent some violation of law or transgression of a strong public policy, the parties to a contract are basically free to make whatever agreement they wish, no matter how unwise it might appear to a third party" (Rowe v Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 46 NY2d 62, 67-68 [1978]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 04, 2014