Full text
558 Seventh Ave Corp. v. Times Sq Photo, Inc.
558 Seventh Ave Corp. v Times Sq Photo, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 33273(U) September 17, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653090/2020 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva 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.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA PART 42M Justice -------------------.x INDEX NO. 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP., TWO LIONS CAPITAL LLC, 200 WEST 40, LLC AS TENANTS IN COMMON 02/12/2024, MOTION DATE 03/08/2024 Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NOs. 004 & 005 -v- TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC., and RAYMOND SAKA, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. --------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004} 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,181,182 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 179, 180, 183, 184, 185 were read on this motion to/for CONSOLIDATE/JOIN FOR TRIAL
APPEARANCES:
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York, New York (David Barry Rosenbaum, Esq., of counsel} for plaintiffs.
Law Office of Gary S. Fish, New York, New York (Gary S. Fish, Esq., of counsel} for defendants.
HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA:
In this commercial landlord-tenant action, defendants TIMES
SQ PHOTO, INC. (tenant) , and RAYMOND SAKA (guarantor) move, by
notice of motion (seq. no. 004), pursuant to CPLR § 3212, for
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 1 of26 Motion No. 004 005
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
covered in Administrative Code§ 22-1005 ("Guaranty Law") and,
therefore, the guaranty is unenforceable, as a matter of law.
As with their.previous argument, tenant.and guarantor appear to
neglect the law of the case.
The Appellate Division decision clearly found an issue of
fact exists whether tenant defaulted on rent during periods
where the guaranty under the lease was not suspended, pursuant
to the Guaranty Law (see 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times Sq.
Photo Inc., 194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021] ,[holding that -- as
[owner/landlord] allege that guarantor is liable for periods
outside the protective statutory window -- "the parties should
be permitted to make their respective factual showings at the
trial"] ) .
However, since the First Department in this action, the
United States District Court, Southern District, found the
Guaranty Law unconstitutional as it violates the Contracts
Clause (see Melendez v City of New York, 668 F Supp3d 184
[2023]; see also US Const art 1, § 10, cl 1; US Const art 3, §
2, cl 1). Considering this decision, owner/landlord counters
that tenant and guarantor no longer have any defense, pursuant
to Administrative Code§ 22-1005, and guarantor's obligations
are no longer suspended, in any part.
This court agrees, finding no sense in departing from
either the solid reasoning or hoiding in Melendez (id.).
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 10of26 Motion No. 004 005
10 of 26 [* 10]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
Indeed, neither tenant nor guarantor challenge the federal
decision on the merits, or make any substantive arguments about
the provision's interplay with the Contracts Clause {see~
128 Second Realty, supra, 2024 NY Slip Op 32713 [U], *S}.
Further, in the instant matter, owner/landlord served notice on
non-party City of New York under CPLR § 1012 {b) to intervene in
support of the Guaranty Law's constitutionality without any
result {see NYSCEF Doc. No. 168, Affirmation of Service, dated
February 22, 2024).
Tenant and guarantor argue only that Melendez should not be
applied here because doing so would expand defendant guarantor's
liability "where none ... previously ... existed" (see NYSCEF
Doc. No. 176, Affirmation, at 1 6). However, this argument is
unavailing.
The subject commercial lease -- which tenant and guarantor
undisputedly executed -- established the personal guarantee of
tenant.' s lease obligations throughout the lease period (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 171, Lease/Rider Attached to and Forming Part of
Lease, at 1110). For its part, the Guaranty Law extinguished
this obligation. Recognizing said law as unconstitutional, and
giving the commercial lease its intended meaning, cannot fairly
be said to create an obligation where none previously existed.
Also unavailing is tenant and guarantor's remaining
argument on this topic -- that recognizing the
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 11 of 26 Motion No. 004 005
11 of 26 [* 11]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
unconstitutionality o.f the Guaranty Law violates the Ex Post
Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
The prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws appli~s to penal
statutes, not to commercial lease guarantees which are not laws
and are essentially civil in nature {see generally People ex
rel. Rivera v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 40
NY3d 307, 312 [2023] [explaining that "[t] he United States
Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits states from
'retroactively alter(ing) the definition of crimes or
increas [ing] the punishment for criminal acts'" and that, i•where
the challenged statute does not seek to impose a punishment, it
does not run afoul of the Ex Post Facto Clause"]; see also
Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 29 NY3d
202 I 209 [2017] ) •
Tenant and guarantor's next seeks an order for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint as tenant is now a dissolved
corporation. However, Business Corporation Law§ 1006 provides,
in relevant part:
"[that a dissolved corporation] may continue to function for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the corporation . . . The dissolution of a corporation shall not affect any remedy available to or against such corporation, its directors, officers, or shareholders for any right or claim existing or any liability incurred before such dissolution, except as provided in sections 1007 (governing notice to creditors and claimants) or 1008 {governing supreme
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 12 of26 Motion No. 004 005
12 of 26 [* 12]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
court's jurisdiction to supervise dissolution and liquidation"
{see also Business Corporation Law§§ 1007 and 1008).
Therefore, a corporation "continues to exist after
dissolution for the winding up of its affairs, and a dissolved
corporation may sue or be sued on its obligations, including
contractual obligations and contingent claims, until its affairs
are fully adjusted" {Cava Constr. Co., Inc. v Gealtec Remodeling
Corp., 58 AD3d 660, 661 [2009]; see also MMI Trading, Inc. v
Nathan H. Kelman, Inc., 120 AD3d 478, 479-480 [2nd Dept 2014].
In this regard, the Business Corporation Law requires that the
claim was to have existed before dissolution {see Matter of Ford
v Pulmosan Safety Equip. Corp., 52 AD3d 710, 711 [2008]; Gutman
v Club Mediterranee Intl., 218 AD2d 640, 641, 630 NYS2d 343
[1995] ) .
The claims here existed prior to tenant's dissolution.
Further, the Appellate Division, First Department found tenant
liable for the instant breach of contract claim prior to such
dissolution.
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 13 of 26 Motion No. 004 005
13 of 26 [* 13]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In ·its cross--motion for summary judgment, owner/landlord
contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on damages
against tenant in the total sum of $813,378.77 (see NYSCEF Doc.
·No. 175, Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion}. However, owner/landlord has
not established a prima facie entitlement to a judgment on said
amount . (W6 Facility X, LLC v West 6 Care Ctr., Inc., 169 AD3d_.
968 [2d Dept 2019]}. Therefore, the issue of damages must be
resolved at trial.
Owner/landlord further contend that they are entitled to an
order of summary judgment against guarantor, pursuant· -to the
Guaranty.
To establish a prima facie showing of liability under a
guaranty, the proponent of said relief must establish "the
existence of the guaranty, the underlying debt, and the
guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty" (Cooperatieve
Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v Navarro, 25 NY3d 485,
492 [2015]; Davirrtos v Halle, 35 AD3d 270, 272 [l'E~t Dept 2006];
City of New York v Clarose Cinema Corp., 256 AD2d 69, 71 [1st
dept 1998]}. Thereafter, "the burden shifts to the defendant to
establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable
issue [of fact]" (Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-
Boerenleenbank, B.A., 25 NY3d at 492}.
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 14of26 Motion No. ·004 005
14 of 26 [* 14]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
"A guaranty is a promise to fulfill the obligations of
another party, and is subject 'to the ordinary principles of
contract construction'" (id. at 493.; Ironwoods Troy, LLC v
OptiGolf Troy, LLC, 204 AD3d 1130 [3d Dept 2022]). "Under those
principles, a written agreement that.is complete, clear, and
unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain
language of its terms" (Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d
562, 569 [2002]).
Here, owner/landlord establishes (1) the existence bf the
unconditional Guaranty (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 24, Guaranty),
(2) the underlying lease agreement and debt owed (see NYSCEF
Doc. No. 171, Lease; NYSCEF Doc. No. 173, Rent Ledger; NYSCEF
Doc. No. 26, Notice of Drawdown), and (3) guarantor's failure to
make payment in accordance with the terms of the Guaranty (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 169, Affidavit of Merwin Schmookler, Vice
President of 558 SEVENTH AVE. CORP., Manager of TWO LIONS
CAPITAL LLC and 200 WEST 40 LLC, and signor of the Lease
["Schmookler Affidavit"]).
The Guaranty, which guarantor signed in connection with the
commercial Lease, is duly notarized (see Ulm I Holding Corp v
Antell, 155 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2017] [providing: "plaintiff
landlord sustained its prima facie burden of showing that
[defendant] breached the 'good guy' guaranty he signed in
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 15of26 Motion No. 004 005
15 of 26 [* 15]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
connection with the commercial lease by providing a copy of the
guaranty, which was notarized"]).
Further, purs~ant to the plain language of the Guaranty,
guarantor's obligations are:
"absolute, present, primary and unconditional in all respects, and shall at all times be valid and enforceable irrespective of any other agreements or circumstances of any nature whatsoever which might otherwise constitute a defense to this Guaranty and the obligations of guarantor under this Guaranty . . . with respect to the Lease"
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 24, Guaranty p 43, at 1 5 [emphasis added]).
This language is unequivocal and establishes that guarantor
personally and unconditionally guaranteed the lease obligations
for tenant throughout the lease period (see 20 Rewe Street, Ltd
v Zheng, 228 AD3d 607, 608 [2d Dept 2024] [holding: "plaintiff
established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter
of law . . . by demonstrating that defendant unconditionally
guaranteed the payment of (tenant's) obligations under
the lease]).
Additionally, the Schmookler Affidavit and Rent Ledger (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 169, Schmookler Affidavit; NYSCEF Doc. No. 173,
Rent Ledger) establishes that tenant defaulted on its obligation
to pay the rent owed to owner/landlord. In any event, the First
Department's decision found tenant liable to owner/landlord fo~
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 16 of 26 Motion No. 004 005 ·
16 of 26 [* 16]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
unpaid rent {see 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times Sq. Photo Inc.,
194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021]; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 110,
Decision and Order, dated Jan. 18, 2023, p 1 [explaining the
same]). Said default triggered full recourse against guarantor
pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Guaranty {see Reliance
Constr. Ltd. V Kennelly, 70 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2010]).
Further, the Schmookler Affidavit and Rent Ledger, which
both contain a table of the rent arrears owed and paid by
neither tenant nor guarantor, establishes guarantor's failure to
fulfill the lease obligation on behalf of the defaulting tenant
see NYSCEF Doc. No. 169, Schmookler Affidavit, at ,i 22-26;
NYSCEF Doc. No. 173, Rent Ledger; see also Thor Gallery at South
Dekalb, LLC v Reliance Mediaworks {USA) _Inc., 143 AD3d 498 [1st
Dept 2016] [holding: "plaintiff established prima facie the
existence of the lease and guaranty . . . and tenant's failure
to pay the rent . . . and the calculation of the amounts due
under the lease, through the CFO's affidavit . which
included a table of all payments by the tenant")].
In opposition, defendants fail to raise a triable issue of
fact. Defendants only argument in rebuttal is that "a question
of fact exists, as to whether Melendez [sic] should be
prospectively or retroactively applied, so summary judgment on
the issue of guarantor's liability should be denied" {NYSCEF
663090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs; TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 17of26 Motion No. 004 005
17 of 26 [* 17]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
Doc. No. 176, Opposition, at 1 6). This argument does not raise
an issue of fact for trial and is addressed above.
Accordingly, this court grants summary judgment on the
issue of guarantor's. liability, and the issue of damages shall
be resolved at trial.
CROSS-MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
"Under the American Rule, a prevailing party in litigation
generally may not recover attorney's fees from the losing party"
(Sage Sys., Inc. v. Liss, 39 NY3d 27, 29 [2022], citing Hooper
Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491 [1989]). Absent
statute, agreement,· or contract, containing "' unmistakably
clear' language" permitting a successful party to recovery for
attorneys' fees, no such recovery is permissible (Sage Sys,
Inc., 39 NY3d at 31, citing Hooper, 74 NY2d at 492).
Here, paragraph 19 of the commercial lease permits recovery
of "reasonable attorneys' fees in instituting, prosecuting, or
defending" any actions arising from tenant's default where
owner/landlord prevails in any such action (NYSCEF Doc. No. 171,
Lease, at 119) . 4 However, efficiency warrants that this
application be left for the conclusion of the trial.
4 Paragraph 19 of the Lease states, "If Tenant shall default in the observance or performance of any term or covenant on Tenant's part to be observed or performed under, or by virtue of, any of the terms or provisions in any 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 18of26 Motion No. 004 005
18 of 26 [* 18]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
In any event, owner/landlord fails to establish the
reasonableness of the fees claimed. When a party is entitled to
attorneys' fees due to contract, agreement or statute, the
moving party must provide proof of reasonableness of the amount
sought (see Gray Mfg. Co. v. Pathe Indus., Inc., 33 AD2d 739
(1st Dept 1969)). When considering reasonableness of the
attorneys' fees, the court considers "factors such as time and
labor, difficulty of the questions involved, the amount
involved, counsel's experience, ability, and reputation, and the
customary fee charged for such services" (Matter of Wellington
Trusts. [JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.-Sarah P.], 165 AD3d 809, 815
[2d Dept 2018]), no proof of which exists ori this record.
CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The standard of review on a motion, pursuant to CPLR § 3211
(b), to dismiss an affirmative defense "is akin to that used
article of this lease, after notice is required, and upon expiration of any applicable grace period if any, then, unless otherwise provided elsewhere in the lease, Owner may immediately, or at any time thereafter, and without notice, perform the obligation of Tenant thereunder, .and if Owner, in connection therewith or in connection with any default by Tenant in the covenant to pay rent hereunder, makes any expenditures or in.curs any obligations for the payment of money including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees in instituting, prosecuting, or defending any actions or proceeding, and prevails in any such action or proceeding, such sums so paid or obligations incurred with interest and costs shall be deemed to be additional rent hereunder and shall be paid by Tenant to Owner within ten days of rendition of any bill or statement to Tenant therefore, and if Tenant's lease term shall have expired at the time of making such expenditures or incurring such obligations, such sums shall be recoverable by OWner as damages" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 171, Lease}. 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 19of26 Motion No. 004 005
19 of 26 [* 19]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
under CPLR § 3211 (a} (7) , i.e., whether there is any legal or
factual basis for the assertion of the defense" {Matter of Ideal
Mut. Ins. Co., 140 AD2d 62, 67 [lst·Dept 1988]}. Further, on
such a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has the burden of
"demonstrating that the defenses are without merit as a matter
of law" (534 E. 11th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp .. v Hendrick, 90
AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2011]}. And the court must provide
defendant "the benefit of every reasonable intendment of the
pleading, which is to be liberally construed" {Warwick v Cruz,
270 AD2d 255 [2d Dept 2000]}.
Though this court grants owner/landlord's motion for summary
judgment on the issue of guarantor's liability, defendants'
affirmative defenses are primarily geared toward the issue of
damages. As such, this court will review each affirmative defense
in turn below.
Tenant and guarantor's first affirmative defense, failure to
mitigate damages, is dismissed as it has no merit. "A landlord is
under no legal duty to mitigate damages in the event of a material
breach of the lease by a commer.cial tenant" (New 24 W. 40th St.
LLC v XE Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 104 AD3d 513, 514 [1st Dept 2013]}; Sage
Realty Corp. v Kenbee Mgmt.-New York, Inc., 182 AD2d 480 [1st Dept
1992] [providing: "this court has repeatedly held that 'in a
commercial leave the lessor is not under a duty to mitigate
damages' "] } . Additionally, tenant and guarantor are silent in
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 20 of26 Motion No. 004 005
20 of 26 [* 20]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
their opposition as to the viability of this affirmat'ive defense
{see Steffan v Wilens~y, 150 AD3d 419 [1st Dept 2017] [providing
that defendants silence in his opposition brief is a concession
"that the ... affirmative defense should be dismissed"]).
Tenant and guarantor's second affirmative defense -- that
owner/landlord is not entitled to rent acceleration damages
pursuant to the plain language of Paragraphs 18 and 82 ·of the
Lease is sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
While the parties present starkly contrasted interpretations of
Paragraphs 18 and 82 of the Lease, owner/landlord has not·
established that the defense is without merit as a matter of
law. It appears a question of fact remains not only as to
whether owner/landlord are entitled to rent acceleration
damages, but as to the amount of such damages, if any.
Tenant and guarantor's third affirmative defense is that_
the damages sought as rent acceleration represent an
unenforceable penalty "not liquidated damages" {NYSCEF Doc. No.
112, Amended Answer at 121). Tenant and guarantor are correct
that "an enforceable liquidated damages provision must be
proportionate to the actual damages sustained and cannot serve
as a penalty" {see Elk 33 E. 33 rd LLC v Sticky' s Corp. LLC, 228
AD3d 455 [1st Dept 2024]). However, the liquidated damages
provision here, and its proportionality to the actual damages
sustained, presents a fact issue.
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page21 of26 Motion No. 004 005
21 of 26 [* 21]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
Tenant and guarantor's fourth affirmative defense -- that
owner/landlord failed to properly serve guarantor -- is
dismissed (see NYSCEF Doc No. 112, Amended Answer, at 1 22). The
court (N. Bannon, J.S.C.) previously found an unrebutted
presumption of effective service on guarantor (see NYSCEF Doc.
No. 132, Decision and Order dated April 27, 2023). This
substantive decision constitutes the law of the case (see
Chanice v Fed. Exp. Corp., 118 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2014]); see
also Ruiz v Anderson, 96 AD3d 691 [1st Dept 2012]).
Tenant and guarantor's fifth and sixth affirmative defenses
state that tenant is insolvent, and any judgment is
unenforceable, and that guarantor's liability under the Guaranty
is also unenforceable due to the insolvency (see NYSCEF Doc No.
112, Amended Answer, at 1 23-24). However, this argument has no
basis (see Business Corporation Law§§ 1006 and 1007 [previously
discussed]). Insolvency alone does not preclude judgment
particularly where, as here, tenant was dissolved and divested
of its assets mid-litigation (see Fernandez v Kinsey, 205 AD2d
448 [1st Dept 1994]; see also 80-02 Leasehold, LLC v CM Realty
Holdings Corp., 123 AD3d 872 [2d Dept 2014]).
Owner/landlord's application to dismiss the seventh
affirmative defense -- that the Administrative Code of New York
City§ 22-1005 ("the Guaranty Law") applies and renders the
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page22of26 Motion No. 004 005
22 of 26 [* 22]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
Guaranty of the commercial lease unenforceable is granted for
the reasons previously stated.
Tenant and guarantor's eighth and ninth affirmative defenses
seek to offset damages due to defective structural conditions,
i.e. an alleged water leak (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 112, Amended Answer
at 1 26-27}. Owner/landlord allege that this affirmative defense. is barred by the plain language of the Lease. However, these
affirmative defenses are sufficiently pled, and owner/landlord's
argument raises issues of fact that are ill-suited in the context
of a motion to dismiss.
In sum, the court denies tenant and guarantor's motion (seq.
no. 004} for an order of summary judgment, dismissing the complaint
against them for lack of liability; grants owner/landlord's cross-
motion for an order of summary judgment on the issue of guarantor's
liability, but otherwise denies the cross-motion as to damages;
grants owner/landlord's cross-motioh to dismiss the first, fourth,
fifth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses; and denies
owner/landlord's cross-motion to dismiss as to the remaining
affirmative defenses.
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 23of26 Motion No. 004 005
23 of 26 [* 23]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
MOTION SEQUENCE 005
Tenant and guarantor seek consolidation of this action with
558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Raymond Saka {Index No. 651255/2023, Sup Ct, NY County 2023) {"558 Seventh Ave. Corp"). In support,
they highlight that the 558 Seventh Ave. Co;rp. matter and the
instant matter involve the same commercial space, the same ten-
year lease, and common questions of law and fact.
Owner/landlord oppose the motion, arguing that
"consolidation of this action would only serve to unnecessarily
delay the resolution of this action given the markedly differing
postures of the cases". {NYSCEF Doc. No. 185, Owner/landlord
Opposition to Motion to Consolidate).
"CPLR § 602 {a) gives the trial court discretion to consolidate
actions involving common questions of law or fact" {Progressive
Ins. Co. v Vasquez~ 10 AD3d 518 [1st Dept 2004]) . "Even where
there are common questions Of law or fact, consolidation of actions
is properly denied if the actions are at markedly different
procedural stages and consolidation would result in undue delay in
the resolution of either matter;, {L.B. v ·Stahl York Ave. Co., 188
AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2020]; Abrams v Port Authority Trans-
Hudson Corp., 1 AD3d 118 [1st Dept 2003]. "It being well settled
that the existence of substantial prejudice in the form of delay
in the trial of another action is sufficient reason to deny
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page24of26 Motion No. 004 005
24 of 26 [* 24]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
consolidation even in situations where common questions of law or
fact exits" (F&K Supply, Inc v Johnson, 197 AD2d 814 [3d Dept
1993)} .
Here, the two actions· are at vastly different stages of
litigation -- the issue of liability has been determined in the
instant action, with only the issue of damages outstanding, while
discovery is at its infancy in the second action(~ Krembs v NYU
Langone Hosps., 214 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2023]}. This matter will be
placed on the trial calendar imminently, and consolidation would
unduly delay the completion of such. Thus, consolidation would
not serve judicial economy or the interests of justice, and would
substantially prejudice owner/landlord (see Stahl York Ave. Co.,
188 AD3d at 421; see F&K Supply, 197 AD2d at 814). Therefore, the
motion to consolidate (seq. no. 005) -is denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion (seq. no. 004) of defendants TIMES SQ
PHOTO, INC. (tenant} and RAYMOND SAKA (guarantor} for an order of
summary judgment is denied entirely; it is further
ORDERED that the cross-motion of plaintiffs 558 SEVENTH AVE
CORP., TWO LIONS CAPITAL LLC, and 200 WEST 40, LLC AS TENANTS IN
COMMON (owner/landlord} is granted, in part, as to guarantor's
liability and de~ied, in all remaining parts; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss the
affirmative defenses, is granted, in part, to the extent that
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs.TiMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page25of26 Motion No. 004 005
25 of 26 [* 25]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/18/2024 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 653090/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 189 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/18/2024
defendants' affirmative defenses numbered first, fourth, fifth,
sixth, and seventh are dismissed, and denied, in all remaining
parts; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants' motion (seq. no. 005) to
consolidate is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is scheduled for a Pre-Trial
Conference before Justice Emily-Morales Minerva in Part 42 at 111
Centre Street New York, NY 10013, in Courtroom 574 on January 7,
2025, at 10:00 A.M.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
September 17, 2024 DATE
~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 26 of 26 Motion No. 004 005
26 of 26 [* 26]
Footnotes
[1] of 26 [* 1] summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Tenant and guarantor separately move, by notice of motion (seq. no. 005}, to consolidate the instant action with 558 Seventh Ave. Corp., et al v Raymond Saka, Alex Saka, Index No. 651255/2023 (Sup Ct, NY County 2023} . Plaintiffs 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP., TWO LIONS CAPITAL LLC, and 200 WEST 40, LLC AS TENANTS IN COMMON (collectively owner/landlord}, oppose motion (seq. no. 004}, and cross-move (1} for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting owner/landlord summary judgment against guarantor as to liability, and against tenant and guarantor as to damages, and (2} ·for an order pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (b}, dismissing tenant and guarantor's affirmative defenses. Owner/Landlord also opposes motion (seq. no. 005} for consolidation. For the reasons set forth below, the motion (seq. no. 004} of tenant and guarantor for an order of summary judgment is denied entirely; owner/landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted, in part, on the issue of guarantor's liability alone; owner/landlord's cross-motion for an order dismissing tenant and guarantor's affirmative defenses is granted, in part; and tenant and guarantor's motion to consolidate (seq. no. 005} is denied. 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page2of26 Motion No. 004 005
[2] of 26 [* 2] BACKGROUND Plaintiffs 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP., TWO LIONS CAPITAL LLC, and 200 WEST 40, LLC AS TENANTS IN COMMON (owner/landlord) are the owners, lessors, and landlord, as tenants-in-common, of a commercial property located at 200 West 40 th Street, New York, New York 10011 (see NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 111, Amended Complaint, at 14). On or about February 22, 2019, defendant TIMES.SQ PHOTO, INC. (tenant) and owner/landlord executed a ten-year lease for the ground floor of said premises (id. at 18). Said commercial lease included a "Guaranty" pursuant to which defendant RAYMOND SAKA (guarantor) personally guaranteed the commercial lease obligations of tenant including the monetary obligations thereunder {id. at 1110) . 1 Tenant failed to pay rent for the period of April 2020 through February 2021, and vacated the premises in February 2021. In the meanwhile, on July 14, 2020, owner/landlord commenced this action against tenant and guarantor, alleging 1 The Guaranty provides, in part: "[t]he undersigned Raymond Saka [guarantor] . . . hereby guaranties, unconditionally and absolutely, to [owner/landlord], its successors and assigns (without requiring any notice of nonpayment, non- keeping, nonperformance or nonobservance or proof of notice or demand whereby to charge Guarantor, all which Guarantor hereby waives), the full and faithful keeping, performance and observance of all the covenants, agreements, terms, provisions and conditions of the Lease provided to be kept, performed and observed by Tenant . . . and the payment of any and all. other damages for which Tenant shall be liable by reason of any act or omission contrary to any said covenants, agreements, terms, provisions or conditions" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 24, Guaranty, p 41). 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs; TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page3of26 Motion No. 004 005
[3] of 26 [* 3] breach of contract and breach of guaranty, and seeking payment of rental arrears, additional rent, and attorneys' fees (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 154, Affirmation, at 15). Tenant and guarantor fi_led an answer, asserting nine affirmative defenses (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 112, Amended Answer, at 119). Among those defenses are owner/landlord's failure to re-let the premises; owner/landlord's failure to properly serve defendant; tenant's insolvency, rendering any judgment unenforceable; the applicability of Administrative Code of City of NY§ 22-1005 as it pertains to rental monies allegedly owed; and owner/landlord's failure to properly maintain the premises. Following the answer, owner/landlord filed a motion (seq. no. 001), pursuant to CPLR § 3212, for an order granting them summary judgment and awarding damages as a matter of law .. Tenant and guarantor opposed the motion, and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint as against the guarantor for improper service. The court (N. Bannon, J.S.C.), among other things, denied said motion in its entirety, reasoning that NYC Administrative Code§ 22-1005 (the Guaranty Law) 2 prohibits enforcement of 2 NYC Administrative Code§ 22-1005 ("Guaranty Law") bars enforceability against a natural person of that person's guarantee of commercial-lease obligations if two conditions are satisfied, (1) the tenant's operations were halted or restricted under March 2020 COVID-related executive orders, and (2) the "default or other event causing such natural persons to become wholly or partially personally liable for such obligation occurred between March 7, 2020 and June 30, 2021, inclusive" (Administrative Code§ 22-1005 [2]). 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page4of26 Motion No. 004 005 ·
[4] of 26 [* 4] personal guaranties on commercial leases (see Decision and Order, dated January 11, 2021). Upon owner/landlord's appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, reinstating the complaint, and granting owner/landlord's motion for an order of summary.judgment as to liability against tenant for unpaid rent (see 558 Seventh Ave. Corp. v Times sg; Photo Inc., 194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021]). The honorable First Department reasoned that tenant did not dispute its failure to pay rent, "but [instead] disputed [owner/landlord's] treatment of the security deposit in calculating their damages" for unpaid rent (id. at 561). Therefore, no issue of fact existed as to tenant's breach, and the Appellate Division instructed tenants to "raise their arguments about the security deposit at the trial on damages" (id. at 562). Regarding the applicability of the Guaranty Law (see Administrative Code of City of NY§ 22-1005), the First Department noted that owner/landlord "acknowledged" the statute "prohibited the enforcement of commercial lease guaranties against natural.persons in certain circumstances" (id. at 562). However, as an issue a fact exists as to whether tenant is liable for nonpayment of rent during periods outside the statute's protection, the First Department determined that the 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 5of26 Motion No. 004 005 ·
[5] of 26 [* 5] parties should "make their factual showings [as to the outside periods] at the trial" (id. at 562). · Following the First Department's decision, owner/landlord moved, by notice of motion {seq. no. 002), to restore the matter to the court's calendar, to amend the pleadings, to dismiss tenant and guarantor's affirmative defenses, and to obtain an order, granting it summary judgment against guarantor. The court {N. Bannon, J.S.C.) granted owner/landlord's motion, in part, to the extent of restoring the matter to the court's calendar and permitting them to file an amended complaint (see Decision and Order, dated January 18, 2023). The court {N. Bannon, J.S.C.) denied owner/landlord's motion, in remaining part, as premature to the extent that it sought an order of summary judgment and dismissal of ·affirmative defenses not yet filed (id.). After the parties filed their amended pleadings, tenant and guarantor moved, by notice of motion (seq. no. 003), pursuant to CPLR § 3211{e), to dismiss the amended complaint as against guarantor on the ground of improper service. The Court (N. Bannon, J.S.C.) denied said motion, finding, among other things, "a presumption of effective service without persuasive rebuttal" {Decision and Order, dated April 23, 2023). The parties then engaged in discovery with the court {N. Bannon, J.S.C.) holding the final status conference between 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page 6of 26 Motion No. 004 005
[6] of 26 [* 6] them on October 19, 2023. There, the parties confirmed that discovery was "nearly complete" and the same court set the deadline for the filing of the note of issue (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 151, Status Conference Order). Thereafter, owner/landlord filed a timely Note of Issue. Tenant and guarantor then filed the instant motions for an order of summary judgment (motion seq. no. 004) and for consolidation (motion seq. no. 005) • 3 Owner/landlord filed opposition to both motions, cross-moving in motion seq. no. 004 for an order of summary judgment and for an order dismissing affirmative defenses. The court shall address each motion in turn immediately below. 3 The affirmation in support of tenant and guarantor's motions repeatedly instructs that "the Court shall take judicial notice" of broad parts of the record, including exhibits and pleadings (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 154, Affirmation in Support, p 1-4; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 176, Affirmation in Reply, p 1-2, 4). However, this Court is not under any duty to take judicial notice of such documents and declines to do so here where defendants make no direct request, offers no explanation as to what, if any, parts in the broad materials listed constitute common and general knowledge appropriate for judicial notice (see generally Dallas v W.R. and Co., 22 AD2d 319 [1st Dept 1996] [providing that trial courts, in exercise of discretion, may take judicial notice of matters "of common and general knowledge, well established and authoritatively settled"]; see also Blonder & Co. v Citibank, N.A., 28 AD3d 180, 189 [1st Dept 2006] [setting for the "test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact to make it proper to assume its existence without proof"]). 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page7of26 Motion No. 004 005
[7] of 26 [* 7] MOTION SEQUENCE 004 Tenant and Guarantor's Motion for Summary Judgment Analysis On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must 'make a prima facie showing .of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering [evide.ntiary proof in admissible form] to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact'" (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,
[26] NY3d 40, 49 [2015], citing Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; CPLR § 3212[b]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1066, [1979] [providing movant must support the subject application with "'evidentiary proof in admissible form'"]). It is black letter law that such proof shall include the "affidavit" of a person having personal . knowledge of the facts, "a copy of the pleadings" and "other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions" (see CPLR § 3212 [b]}. The court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences (see De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 2·6 NY3d 742 [2016] } . If the moving party makes the requisite showing, the non- moving party then has the burden "'to establish the existence of 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Pagel of26 Motion No. 004 005 8 of 26 [* 8] [factual issues] which require a trial of the action'" (id. at 763, citing Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] , quoting Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324) . Here, it is the law of the case that tenant is liable to owner/landlord for unpaid rent as asserted in the first cause of action (see generally Chanice v Fed. Exp. Corp., 118 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2014] [explaining that "[t] he doctrine of law of the case contemplates that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate when the initial determination was made" and, "[w]hen applied, the doctrine precludes parties . . . from relitigating an issue that has already been decided"]; see 558 Seventh Ave. ~orp. v Times Sq. Photo Inc., 194 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2021] [granting this owner/landlord summary judgment against tenant as to liability for unpaid rent]; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 110, Decision and Order, dated Jan. 18, 2023, p 1 [explaining the same]). Therefore, the undersigned will not entertain the summary judgment motion (seq. no. 004) to the extent it seeks an order finding that tenant is not liable to owner/landlord as a matter of law. The Court next addresses the portion of the motion, seeking an order of summary judgment on liability as against guarantor. Tenant and guarantor first contend that tenant cannot be held liable for the default occurring during the statutory period 653090/2020 558 SEVENTH AVE CORP. vs. TIMES SQ PHOTO, INC. Page9 of26 Motion No. 004 005 . 9 of 26 [* 9]