Opinion
570473/10.
Decided February 25, 2011.
Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), dated November 30, 2009, after a nonjury trial, which awarded landlord possession and a money judgment for use and occupancy in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Raul Cruz, J.), dated November 30, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ.
As the trial court correctly concluded, tenant has shown no equitable interest that would warrant protection against forfeiture. Specifically, tenant failed to demonstrate that, with the intent to renew the lease, it made substantial improvements to the leasehold; tenant also failed to demonstrate that, if it were to be evicted from the premises and compelled to relocate, it would lose the good will of the community, its clientele at a long-standing location and a substantial and valuable asset ( see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc., 42 NY2d 392; Sy Jack Realty Co. v Pergament Syosset Corp., 27 NY2d 449; see also Kunze v Arito, Inc. , 48 AD3d 272 ). Since tenant did not provide landlord with timely written notice to renew as required under the lease ( see American Realty Co. v 64 B Venture, 176 AD2d 226, lv denied 79 NY2d 756; Aldo Props. III, Inc. v Lewis , 14 Misc 3d 139 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50301[U]) or demonstrate its entitlement to equitable renewal of the lease, landlord was properly awarded possession and a recovery for use and occupancy.
We note that tenant was not precluded, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, from litigating in the instant proceeding the issue of whether tenant equitably renewed the subject lease, since that issue was not "necessarily decided" in the prior Supreme Court action between the parties ( see Kaufman v Eli Lilly Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455-456 [1985]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.