Landlord's argument that Tenant could not have been constructively evicted because it vacated the premises by the end of 2016, before the claimed eviction, is unavailing. Although Tenant ceased business at the location, it is undisputed that, in addition to leaving equipment in the space, Tenant also monitored the premises periodically, maintained insurance, and continued to pay rent (see e.g. Capital Cities Media v Yeshiva Univ., 237 A.D.2d 210 [1st Dept 1997]). The Tenant also submitted evidence to show that both it and the Landlord were seeking a subtenant for the space.

Landlord’s argument that Tenant could not have been constructively evicted because it vacated the premises by the end of 2016, before the claimed eviction, is unavailing. Although Tenant ceased business at the location, it is undisputed that, in addition to leaving equipment in the space, Tenant also monitored the premises periodically, maintained insurance, and continued to pay rent (see e.g. Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Yeshiva Univ., 237 A.D.2d 210, 655 N.Y.S.2d 480 [1st Dept. 1997]). The Tenant also submitted evidence to show that both it and the Landlord were seeking a subtenant for the space.