LC Apts., LLC v Guzman
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 20, 2015
County Court, Monroe County
LC Apartments, LLC, Plaintiff
against
Angel Guzman, Defendant.
2015/002363
For the Plaintiff:
ANDREW J. DICK, ESQ.
301 Exchange Boulevard
Rochester, NY 14608
For the Defendant:
ANGEL GUZMAN, PRO SE
143 Ford Avenue
Rochester, NY 14606
Christopher S. Ciaccio, J.
Plaintiff LC Apartments, LLC ("LC") a landlord, sued to recover the unpaid balance of rent owed by defendant Angel Guzman ("Guzman") on his residential lease. Guzman had turned the keys and possession of the apartment over to LC before the end of the lease because he could not afford the rent, and now argues that LC did not re-let the apartment or let him sub-let the apartment in good faith, allowing four months go by before signing a lease with a new tenant.
Following a bench trial, the lower court dismissed the complaint, finding that LC, having accepted the keys and re-taken possession, released Guzman from all obligations under the lease, citing Brock Enterprises Ltd. v. Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc., 292 AD2d 681 (3rd Dept. 2002).
Plaintiff now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, the lower court is reversed, the complaint is reinstated, and judgment entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,540.50, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $200.00.
In May 2013 the defendant signed a fifteen month lease for an apartment in Plaintiff's building. The lease provided that if the landlord takes back the apartment, the unpaid rent becomes immediately due and payable.
In October 2013 defendant lost his job. He told the plaintiff's agent he could no longer afford the rent, and he made an arrangement to turn over his keys and possession of the apartment to the plaintiff on October 31, 2014. As per an "apartment inspection report" which is part of the record, Plaintiff inspected the apartment prior to taking possession, and found nothing [*2]wrong with it. Below the defendant's signature on the inspection report is a handwritten entry stating that the tenant understood that he remained liable for the rent through the end of the lease term. No writing by the defendant indicates that he agreed to or even read that clause.
Defendant testified that he told the plaintiff about two possible renters who had expressed an interest in sub-letting the apartment. For whatever reason neither signed a lease, and plaintiff did not enter a new lease for the apartment until March 1.
Thus, plaintiff seeks to recover the value of four months of unpaid rent, from November 1 to March 1, plus expenses, which include late fees ($200.00), a carpet shampoo fee for a cleaning done just prior to the move-in date for the new tenant ($75.00), administrative fees ($45.00), Rochester Gas and Electric ($178.58), and a miscellaneous fee of $88.93, less the defendant's security deposit, for a total of $3,128.01.
In reviewing a decision following a non-jury trial, this Court may independently review the evidence presented and grant judgment as warranted by the record, giving due deference to the trial court's credibility determinations (Caggianelli v. Sontheimer, 46 AD3d 1206, 1207 [3rd Dept. 2007], citing Poli v. Lema, 24 AD3d 981, 983 [3rd Dept. 2005]).
It is well-settled that when a tenant abandons a leasehold prior to expiration of the lease, the landlord has three options: (1) it can do nothing and collect the full rent due under the lease; (2) it can accept the tenant's surrender, reenter the premises and re-let them for its own account thereby releasing the tenant from further liability for rent, or (3) it could notify the tenant that it was entering and re-letting the premises for the tenant's benefit, in which case it would credit the defendant for the payments received from the new tenant for the remaining portion of defendant's lease (Holy Props. Ltd v. Kenneth Cole Prods. Inc., 87 NY2d 130, 133-134 [1995]).
The court below essentially found that the landlord had selected option number (2), in that an acceptance of the defendant's surrender of the apartment occurred when plaintiff took the keys from defendant and "rebuffed his attempts to locate someone" to sublet the apartment, and that as a result, defendant was released from all obligations under the lease, citing Brock Enterprises Ltd.
Public policy concerns collide in this case, and are given some consideration, given the limited record evidence of the intent of the parties. On the one hand, landlords should be encouraged to re-let vacant properties, however, if a surrender is deemed to occur simply when the keys are turned over, thus relieving the tenant of future obligations, then landlords would justifiably be reluctant to ever take back the keys. They will either always bring eviction proceedings (at significant cost to both parties) or sit on the property and take a judgment - often of dubious collectibility - for the full unpaid rent. (See, Centurian Dev. V. Kenford Co., 60 AD2d 96 [4th Dept. 1976]).
At the same time, the tenant who cannot pay the rent should be encouraged to vacate the property, because it is to his advantage to avoid the problems associated with sub-letting the apartment and allow the landlord to re-let the property as soon as possible. However, if he turns over the keys, and if the landlord is slow to re-rent the lease, then he will have to be liable on a large portion of the unpaid lease.
The Court finds that the record does not support the conclusion that there was a surrender and acceptance. The only act consistent with surrender and acceptance is that the defendant turned over his keys and the plaintiff accepted them, which is not quite enough. (See, 80 State St. LLC v. Allwen, Inc., 6 AD3d 978 [3rd Dept. 2004]).
Plaintiff continued to hold the security deposit, without any evidence that defendant [*3]asked for it back, and plaintiff clearly credited defendant's account for the payments received from the new tenant. Unlike in Brock Enterprises, the plaintiff did not immediately start collecting rents and leasing out the property, nor did he seek to recover the full amount of the rent owed without crediting back to the tenant any amounts received from the new tenant. Rather, he continued to bill for the past due rent. (80 State St. LLC v. Allwen, Inc., supra). And, he re-leased the property within a fairly short period of time, given the time of year.
Finally, the original lease agreement expressly states that the rent obligation does not terminate if the lease ends prematurely.
The Court gives no weight to the handwritten note on the apartment inspection report which states that the tenant understands that he is aware that he is responsible for the rent until the end of the lease. That writing, occurring as it does below the tenant's signature, is a nullity. There is no admissible evidence that indicates that the tenant read and understood that clause. Any assertion otherwise borders on the disingenuous.
The Court declines to award late fees, as there is no evidence to support the contention that the defendant actually expected to get paid prior to the time it could re-let the apartment. Nor will the Court allow the shampoo charge, as the apartment did not need a shampoo at the time the plaintiff accepted the keys, as reflected on the pre-inspection report. Likewise, the court declines to award administrative fees related to payment of bills, finding them to be excessive and exorbitant relative to the work involved. Finally, the Court declines to award the reimbursement for the gas and electric bill and for what seems to have been a municipal bill for $88.93. The tenant, having relinquished the keys, may not have effected a surrender and acceptance, but he did lose his ability to control the amount of electric and water use for the apartment, therefore he cannot be deemed to be responsible for those charges. And if it is true that the only electrical appliance drawing electricity was a thermostat, then the amounts billed for electric are on their face unreasonable.
The full amount of the requested attorney's fees is rejected. It is apparent that there was a misunderstanding between the parties at the time the tenant turned the keys over to the plaintiff as to his continuing rights and responsibilities, which misunderstanding could have easily been avoided by a clearly stated memorandum delivered to the defendant at the time he vacated, and signed and acknowledged by him below, not above, the terms of the memorandum. If that had occurred, it is reasonable to believe that this action would have been a simple collection action which would have gone to judgment or been paid, without the necessity of a prolonged trial and appeal. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that judgment is to be entered in the amount of $2,540.50, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $200.00.
Dated: December 20, 2015
Rochester, New York
____________________________________
HON. CHRISTOPHER S. CIACCIO
Monroe County Court Judge
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.
