Opinion
February 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliot Wilk, J.).
In light of defendant's history of refusing to remit to plaintiff real estate taxes due under the parties' lease agreement, the motion court's declaration requiring defendant's payment of the disputed obligation in the future was appropriate ( see, Sherry v. New York State Educ. Dept., 479 F. Supp. 1328, 1335); We modify only to the extent of limiting plaintiff's recovery of attorneys' fees to those incurred in its prosecution of this action. Although the subject lease agreement specifically grants plaintiff the right to seek attorneys' fees incurred in the event of any default by defendant, enforcement of the prohibition against the splitting of causes of action requires that such fees be sought within the action in which they are incurred, and not in a subsequent action ( see, 930 Fifth Corp. v. King, 54 A.D.2d 636, affd 42 N.Y.2d 886).
Concur — Rubin, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.