From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ring v. Anabil USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2006
29 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

8554.

May 18, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered March 25, 2005, which, in an action to recover rent due under a commercial lease, upon the prior grant of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiffs the total sum of $341,346.24, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the amount of the award by the amount of the security deposit defendant is entitled to have returned to it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for further proceeding to calculate such offset.

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, for appellant.

Pollack Sharan, LLP, New York (Adam Paul Pollack of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ., concur.


There are no issues of fact precluding an award of summary judgment to plaintiffs. The evidence demonstrates that plaintiffs did not consent to defendant's early termination of the lease and, pursuant to the lease, defendant was responsible for the payment of rent and other costs through March 31, 2005. Defendant is, however, entitled to have the judgment offset as above indicated.

Defendant's additional argument is unavailing.


Summaries of

Ring v. Anabil USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2006
29 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Ring v. Anabil USA, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL RING et al., Respondents, v. ANABIL USA, INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 18, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3977
815 N.Y.S.2d 68

Citing Cases

L. Charney 1410 Broadway, LLC v. Whaling Mfg Co.

In the event there is an excess, plaintiff may be responsible to return a portion of that security deposit to…

188 Ave. A Take Out Food Corp. v Lucky Jab Realty Corp.

While usually nothing will prevent a landlord from applying the security deposit to the arrears, "interest on…