Central Booking Brooklyn, LLC v Roazzi
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 28, 2014
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Central Booking Brooklyn, LLC, Claimant,
against
Richard Roazzi, Defendant.
SCK 60219/13
Central Booking Brooklyn, LLC - claimant, pro se
21 Ludlow Street
New York, NY 10002
Richard Roazzi - defendant, pro se
428 Atlantic Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Reginald A. Boddie, J.
Claimant commenced this small claims action seeking return of a deposit for rental of a commercial premises in the amount of $3,000. Defendant averred he is entitled to retain the deposit as compensation for damages resulting from claimant's alleged failure to consummate a lease. After trial, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
It is undisputed that claimant deposited $3,000 with defendant in or about September 2012, as a binder to hold a certain commercial property, which claimant intended to use as an art studio, pending further negotiations and that no lease was ever entered into. At or about the same time claimant deposited the money in the form of a check, claimant submitted a preliminary document containing proposed terms for a final agreement. The document was unsigned and did not specify the address of the premises, lease start and end date, or rental amount, although the parties agreed the preliminary discussion involved a rent of $6,000 per month. Neither party discussed what would happen if the parties failed to sign a lease.
The evidence at trial also showed defendant, at the initial stages of negotiation, did not believe claimant was financially eligible and defendant sought additional financial documents from claimant. The subsequent documents showed defendant was correct about claimant's limited financial resources. Nevertheless, defendant offered claimant a lease for a monthly rent [*2]of $5,500, which claimant refused to sign. Claimant proffered several reasons for refusing to sign including, notably, that defendant did not offer a reasonable rental amount and refused to permit any changes to the contract to accommodate claimant. However, the court finds, as claimant's own testimony established, that the real reason claimant refused to sign the agreement was its limited income and lack of other financial resources. Defendant argued that because he was required to hold the premises for claimant for one month before he learned that claimant would not be renting it, he is entitled to retain the deposit as compensation.
It is undisputed here that a final contract was never created. Although claimant was eventually offered a lease that contained all the essential terms, it was not signed. Consequently, there was no agreement. Furthermore, the prior written statement of the claimant was nothing more than negotiation for a future agreement. An agreement to agree which refers to proposed terms to be entered into a future contract is not enforceable (Lupoli v West Hills Neighborhood Assoc., 140 AD2d 312 [App Div 2d Dept 1988]; Monaco v Nelson, 121 AD2d 371 [App Div 2d Dept 1986]). Here, no provision was made by the parties for retention of the deposit in the event negotiations failed.
Further, defendant failed to provide any proof of damages (Petito v Aiello, 181 Misc 371 [App Term 2d Dept 1944]; Brodfeld v Schlanger, 104 NYS 369 [NY Sup 1907]). Although the court is sympathetic to defendant's position that he was required to hold the premises for claimant only to learn one month later that claimant was not renting it, his claim for retention of the deposit fails. Therefore, defendant shall return the deposited amount of $3,000 plus $30.27 costs to claimant within thirty days from the date of this decision. In the event of his failure to do so, claimant may enter judgment in the amount of $3,030.27.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
Dated: May 28, 2014
_________________________________
Hon. Reginald A. Boddie
J.C.C.
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.
