Cedeno v. Bollyky

2025 NY Slip Op 03969 · Appellate Division, First Department · July 1, 2025 · No. Index No. 159460/18; Appeal No. 4673; Case No. 2024-02207

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's denial of cross-motions for summary judgment in a dispute over a revised residential sublease. The court held that the plaintiff ratified the agreement by tendering payments labeled as a security deposit and rent, rejecting her claim of economic duress due to insufficient evidence of wrongful coercion. However, the court found triable issues of fact remain regarding whether either party breached the sublease, specifically concerning payment obligations, insurance requirements, and the defendants' refusal to tender possession.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; González; Mendez; Rodriguez; Rosado
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
July 1, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 159460/18; Appeal No. 4673; Case No. 2024-02207
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order denying summary judgment and cross‑motion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Annette Cedeno v. Andrea Bollyky et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

breach of contractsummary judgmentreal estatecivil procedurecontract interpretation

Practice areas

civil procedurecontractsreal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether summary judgment was proper where triable issues of fact exist
  2. Whether Cedeno's claim of economic duress is sustainable absent evidence of a wrongful threat
  3. Whether there are triable issues of fact regarding breach of the revised sublease, including broker payment, insurance, and refusal to tender possession

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment is improper where triable issues of fact exist, and the lower court correctly denied summary judgment.
  2. Cedeno's economic duress claim cannot be sustained because no evidence was presented showing a wrongful threat that overbore her free will.
  3. There remain triable issues of fact as to whether Cedeno complied with broker payment and insurance requirements and whether the defendants' refusal to tender possession was proper.

Factual background

Cedeno ratified a revised sublease by delivering a $186,000 security deposit and a $15,500 rent check on August 6, 2018. She alleged economic duress, but no evidence of a wrongful threat was presented. Disputed issues remain as to whether Cedeno paid the broker in full, provided required insurance, and whether the defendants' refusal to tender possession of the apartment on that date was proper.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County denied Cedeno's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaims and denied the defendants' cross‑motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims, finding triable issues of fact. Cedeno appealed the order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…