Opinion
06-16-2016
Yolanda CASILIA, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. WEBSTER LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Law Office of Santo Golino, New York (Santo Golino of counsel), for appellant. Max D. Leifer, P.C., New York (Max D. Leifer of counsel), for respondents.
Law Office of Santo Golino, New York (Santo Golino of counsel), for appellant.
Max D. Leifer, P.C., New York (Max D. Leifer of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 28, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by plaintiff Casilia, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff Casilia's alleged inability to use the leased premises as a catering hall due to the certificate of occupancy does not relieve her of the obligation to pay rent for the period of time during which she occupied the premises (Phillips & Huyler Assoc. v. Flynn, 225 A.D.2d 475, 640 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept.1996] ). The lease did not require defendant landlord to obtain a certificate of occupancy that would permit plaintiff's intended use of the premises (see Rivera v. JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 A.D.3d 361, 812 N.Y.S.2d 63 [1st Dept.2006] ; Silver v. Moe's Pizza, 121 A.D.2d 376, 378, 503 N.Y.S.2d 86 [2d Dept.1986] ), and there is no evidence that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff to execute the lease or made a specific representation that her intended use would comply with the certificate of occupancy (Phillips & Huyler Assoc., 225 A.D.2d at 475, 640 N.Y.S.2d 26 ). Plaintiff's admission that she never operated a business at the premises negates her claim for loss of goodwill.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ., concur.