Summary
This Appellate Division decision reverses a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a commercial landlord in a lease dispute involving alleged unauthorized alterations by the tenant. The court held that the landlord failed to demonstrate prima facie that the tenant's installation of a mechanical scissor lift breached the lease or caused injury to the reversion, as such alterations may be reasonably necessary for a tenant's business without prior consent. Consequently, the complaint was reinstated, the landlord's counterclaims were denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the order granting summary judgment was appealable after entry of judgment.
- Whether the plaintiff breached the lease by making alterations without the landlord's consent.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the complaint and on the landlord's counterclaims.
Holdings
- The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of the judgment.
- The appeal from the decision is dismissed because no appeal lies from a decision of the trial court.
- Non‑structural alterations necessary to carry on a tenant's business may be made without the landlord's consent, even if the lease requires consent, provided they do not injure the reversion and are reasonably necessary.
- Summary judgment was improper because the defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie breach and did not eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the necessity of the alterations and any injury to the premises.
- The judgment is reversed, the complaint is reinstated, the summary‑judgment motions are denied, the order is modified accordingly, and the lower‑court decision is vacated.
Key quotations
“Non-structural alterations necessary to carry on a tenant's business may be made without the landlord's consent. This is true even where the lease requires that no alterations may be made without the landlord's consent; provided, however, that such alterations will not injure the reversion, and provided, further, that they are reasonably necessary to enable the tenant to use the premises in the manner set forth in the lease.”
Factual background
The plaintiff, a funeral home, leased premises in Yorktown. In 2012 the plaintiff installed a mechanical scissor lift and made other alterations without the landlord's written consent. The landlord served a notice to cure alleging breach of the lease. The plaintiff later attempted to exercise its option to purchase the premises, which the landlord rejected on the ground of the alleged breach. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of rights and obligations under the lease.
Procedural history
The case originated in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on the counterclaims, entered a judgment for the defendant, and later entered a final judgment. The appellant appealed the order, the decision, and the judgment to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Remand instructions
Complaint reinstated; summary‑judgment motions denied; order modified accordingly; lower‑court decision vacated.