From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tsoumpas 1105 Lexington Equities, LLC v. 1109 Lexington Ave. LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 10, 2020
189 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12596 12596A Index No. 152129/19 Case No. 2019-5620 2019-5621

12-10-2020

In re TSOUMPAS 1105 LEXINGTON EQUITIES, LLC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. 1109 LEXINGTON AVENUE LLC, Respondent–Appellant.

Judith M. Brener, New York (David L. Hamill of counsel), for appellant. Klein Slowik PLLC, New York (Mikhail Sheynker of counsel), for respondent.


Judith M. Brener, New York (David L. Hamill of counsel), for appellant.

Klein Slowik PLLC, New York (Mikhail Sheynker of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Kern, Singh, JJ.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered June 10, 2019, which granted a month-to-month license to petitioner under RPAPL 881, and granted petitioner's motion to amend the caption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The terms of the license granted by the motion court were reasonable. RPAPL 881 gives the motion court the discretion to craft an appropriate remedy "upon such terms as justice requires" (see e.g. Matter of Van Dorn Holdings, LLC v. 152 W. 58th Owners Corp., 149 A.D.3d 518, 518–519, 52 N.Y.S.3d 316 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Respondent fails to identify any prejudice arising from a month-to-month license term, for which it will be duly compensated, and nothing in the court's determination would preclude respondent from seeking additional relief as future circumstances require ( id. ). Unlike Matter of Tory Burch LLC v. Moskowitz , 146 A.D.3d 528, 43 N.Y.S.3d 901 (1st Dept. 2017), petitioner here has submitted detailed site safety plans and proof that the stop work orders had been rescinded. As for the order granting leave to amend the caption, contrary to respondent's contention, CPLR 305(c) and 3025(b) contemplate the correction of scrivener's errors, such as the misnomer in the petition, where the court's jurisdiction is unaffected and the opposing party suffered no prejudice ( Houghtalen v. Norstar Bank, 191 A.D.2d 371, 595 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept. 1993] ; Lopez v. No Kit Realty Corp., 254 A.D.2d 155, 156, 679 N.Y.S.2d 114 [1st Dept. 1998] ).


Summaries of

Tsoumpas 1105 Lexington Equities, LLC v. 1109 Lexington Ave. LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 10, 2020
189 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Tsoumpas 1105 Lexington Equities, LLC v. 1109 Lexington Ave. LLC

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Tsoumpas 1105 Lexington Equities, LLC…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 10, 2020

Citations

189 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
189 A.D.3d 524
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 7481

Citing Cases

U.S. Concrete, Inc. v. The Rinaldi Grp.

Plaintiff simply forgot to include Engineered Devices when it previously amended its complaint to add other…

Stillwater Asset Mgmt. v. 3rd & 36th St. LLC

At the outset, Plaintiff admits it misnamed the Mortgagor in the complaint and seeks to amend same and…