23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp. v. 23 E. 39th St. Devs., LLC

23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 00145 (Appellate Division First Department 2025) · Appellate Division, First Department · January 9, 2025 · No. Index No. 117303/08 Appeal No. 3459-3460-3461 Case No. 2023-05741 2023-05791 2024-01217

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms a Supreme Court judgment awarding damages to a landlord plaintiff in a dispute over lease termination and rent calculations. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that CPLR 5011 requires the judgment to include factual findings regarding when the lease was terminated, holding that such findings are improper in a judgment. The court also declined to modify prior appellate orders or clarify past rulings, noting that the resolution of the current action does not require specific lease termination findings.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; Pitt-Burke; Higgitt; Rosado; Michael
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
January 9, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 117303/08 Appeal No. 3459-3460-3461 Case No. 2023-05741 2023-05791 2024-01217
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County judgment and related orders.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
23 East 39th Street Management Corporation v. 23 East 39th Street Developers, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

real estatecivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

real estatecivil procedureappellate procedurecommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether CPLR 5011 requires the judgment to contain a statement about a prior lease‑termination order
  2. Whether the Appellate Division may modify or vacate its own prior order absent a showing of error

Holdings

  1. The judgment is proper without the statement; CPLR 5011 does not compel inclusion of that historical lease‑termination finding.
  2. The court is fully empowered to vacate or modify its own order, but no basis was shown to do so; therefore the prior order stands.

Key quotations

"it is improper to include findings of fact or conclusions of law in the judgment"
"fully empowered to vacate or modify its own order"

Factual background

The plaintiff, a management corporation, obtained a judgment against the developer for damages. The plaintiff argued that the judgment should include a statement that a 2011 Supreme Court order terminated the lease on Jan. 15, 2009. The developer contended that such a statement was unnecessary and that the special referee acted properly in omitting it.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County entered a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff on Jan. 12, 2024 and subsequent orders. The appellant sought modification of those orders; the Appellate Division reviewed and affirmed the lower court judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…