Imber v Carl Fischer Photography, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Imber v Carl Fischer Photography, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 31197(U) April 24, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653353/2018 Judge: Andrew Borrok Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 653353/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. ANDREW BORROK IAS MOTION 53EFM Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x GERALD IMBER, M.D., P.C., INDEX NO. MOTION DATE 653353/2018 04/04/2019 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -vCARL FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY, INC., DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,45, 46 PREL INJUNCTION/TEMP REST ORDR were read on this motion to/for This is a motion for a Yellowstone injunction brought by the plaintiff-tenant, Gerald Imber, M.D., P.C. (the Tenant). The defendant-landlord, Carl Fischer Photography, Inc. (the Landlord), opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the temporary restraining order granted on July 2, 2018 (the TRO) is vacated. By Standard Form of Store Lease (the Lease Agreement), dated November 1, 2007, between the Tenant and the Landlord, the Tenant leased certain office space from the Landlord located at 12 lA East 83rd Street, New York, New York, for the purpose of operating a medical and surgical office. The Landlord served a Notice to Cure on the Tenant dated April 27, 2016, and a subsequent Notice to Cure dated June 1, 2018, alleging that the Tenant is in violation of the Lease Agreement and demanding that the Tenant cure the alleged defaults by July 5, 2018. The Landlord alleges that that the Tenant has failed to (i) provide sufficient proof of payment of insurance premiums and/or certifications ofrenewal of insurance policies, (ii) replace a bulletin 653353/2018 GERALD IMBER, M.D., P.C., vs. CARL FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY, Motion No. 001 1 of 4 Page 1 of4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 653353/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 board that was allegedly removed from the boiler room in the basement, and (iii) remove an obstruction that was blocking the door to the basement, namely, a small table. The Tenant asserts that it is not in violation of the Lease Agreement because there are no defaults or that any alleged defaults have already been cured or can be readily cured. Where a commercial tenant is threatened with termination of its lease, a Yellowstone injunction maintains the status quo by tolling the cure period pending resolution of the matter, thereby allowing the tenant to cure the default and avoid forfeiture of the lease in the event of an adverse determination on the merits (Graubard Mallen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assocs., 93 NY2d 508, 514 [ 1999]). A party seeking a Yellowstone injunction must demonstrate (i) the existence of a commercial lease, (ii) notice of default, notice to cure, or threat of termination oflease by the landlord, (iii) that the tenant requested injunctive relief prior to the termination of the lease, and (iv) that the tenant is willing and able to cure the alleged default (id.). In considering an application for Yellowstone relief, "[t]he proper inquiry is whether a basis exists for believing that the tenant desires to cure and has the ability to do so through any means short of vacating the premises" (Herzfeld & Stern v Ironwood Realty Corp., 102 AD2d 737, 738 [1st Dept 1984]). Here, the parties do not dispute that there is a commercial lease and that the Landlord has served a Notice to Cure on the Tenant. Nor do the parties dispute that there has been a request for injunctive relief prior to termination of the lease. The inquiry here is whether the Tenant has demonstrated a willingness and ability to cure the alleged defaults. 653353/2018 GERALD IMBER, M.D., P.C., vs. CARL FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY, Motion No. 001 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 653353/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 After several months, the list of alleged defaults has been narrowed. It now appears that the issue of the missing bulletin board has been resolved. As to the table allegedly obstructing access to the basement, the Court finds that access has been satisfactorily restored based on photographs taken by counsel for the Landlord on April 3, 2019 and offered at oral argument on April 4, 2019. Not all defaults have been cured. To wit, Tenant has failed to provide insurance policies which meet the lease requirements. Tenant alleges that it is trying to obtain a retroactive endorsement of its insurance policy for prior periods so that the insurance policy covers the named Tenant under the Lease. At counsel's request, the court has adjourned this matter on a number of occasions so that the Tenant could obtain either the actual endorsement of some indication by the insurer of its willingness to extend such endorsement. On each such appearance, the court has inquired as to whether there is any basis to believe that the insurer would provide retroactive coverage, to which the Tenant has merely indicated that they "have not been told no." Inasmuch as this insufficient to demonstrate an ability to cure and the court has extended multiple adjournments to Tenant, and Tenant has failed to provide any such evidence, the TRO is vacated and the Yellowstone is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the temporary restraining order entered July 2, 2018 is vacated; and it is further ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for a preliminary conference in Room 238, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York on June 10, 2019, at 11:30 AM. 653353/2018 GERALD IMBER, M.D., P.C., vs. CARL FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY, Motion No. 001 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 [* 4] INDEX NO. 653353/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 4/24/2019 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C. ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 DENIED SETTLE ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 653353/2018 GERALD IMBER, M.D., P.C., vs. CARL FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY, Motion No. 001 4 of 4 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page4 of 4

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.