Opinion
2019-696 S C
06-18-2020
SHERWOOD SUFFOLK CO., Appellant, v. PANORAMA CATERING, LTD., Doing Business as Obsessions, Respondent, and "John Doe," Undertenant.
Alan B. Katz of counsel, for appellant. Panorama Catering, Ltd., d/b/a Obsessions, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
Alan B. Katz of counsel, for appellant.
Panorama Catering, Ltd., d/b/a Obsessions, respondent pro se (no brief filed).
PRESENT: THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding after tenant's "sister" company had paid rent to landlord via a bank check and landlord had rejected the check. Tenant moved to dismiss the proceeding, and landlord cross-moved for summary judgment and for attorney's fees. Before the District Court decided the motions, tenant tendered, and landlord accepted, payment of the arrears. In an order dated May 14, 2018, the District Court granted tenant's motion and denied landlord's cross motion. As limited by its brief, landlord appeals from so much of the order as denied the branch of its cross motion seeking attorney's fees.
Landlord would be entitled to attorney's fees only if it was the prevailing party in this proceeding. As landlord did not obtain a judgment of possession for the rental arrears, it was not the prevailing party (see Nestor v. McDowell , 81 N.Y.2d 410 [1993] ; Fairview Hous., LLC v. Dickens , 39 Misc 3d 146[A], 2013 NY Slip Op. 50848[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]; Babylon Vil. Equities v. Mitchell , 11 Misc. 3d 84, 85 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists 2006] [the landlord was not entitled to attorney's fees in a nonpayment proceeding where the landlord had accepted the arrears, without prejudice, because the "landlord did not prevail with respect to the central relief sought because there was no possessory judgment which included arrears in rent"] ). Consequently, the branch of landlord's cross motion seeking attorney's fees was properly denied.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.