90-67 Sutphin Boulevard Corp. v. Titan Capital ID LLC, Sup. Ct., Queens Co. Index No. 70439/2013 (Kitzes, J.)
May 14, 2015
OUTCOME: Motion to dismiss all causes of action granted.
Plaintiffs commenced an action asserting five causes of action in connection with an alleged failure to cancel a notice of pendency, which purportedly resulted in damages as a result of an alleged fail...ure to obtain refinancing.
Real estate
Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc. v. 44-45 Broadway Realty Co., LLC
Jan 02, 2013
OUTCOME: Dismissal of all claims
In April 2012, Toys “R” Us brought suit against 44-45 Broadway Co., LLC in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking damages for breach of contract in the amount of the taxes that Toys “R” Us allegedly h...ad been overcharged during the course of the lease term, as well as a declaratory judgment that Toys “R” Us’s interpretation of the lease with respect to those charges was the correct interpretation. In response, Pryor Cashman, on behalf of 44-45 Broadway, moved to dismiss Toys “R” Us’s complaint. 44-45 Broadway's motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety and all claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Landlord or tenant
PK Restaurant, LLC d/b/a 212 Restaurant and Bar v. 133 East 65th Street Associates LLC and 133 East 65th Street Corporation
Apr 25, 2012
OUTCOME: The court granted plaintiff's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction and ordered the landlord to restore 212 Restaurant to possession of the premises.
In February 2010, the building that housed 212 Restaurant, a Manhattan eatery, suffered a fire and 212 Restaurant, forcing it to close for renovations. For the next two years, 212 Restaurant sought to ...restore the building and re-open the restaurant, but significant delays ensured. Subsequently, during the first week of January 2012, the landlord improperly changed the locks to the building, resulting in a wrongful eviction of the tenant-restaurant under New York law.
Based on the landlord’s wrongful conduct, Pryor Cashman commenced an action in March 2012, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and wrongful eviction. In addition, 212 Restaurant moved for a mandatory preliminary injunction immediately restoring the restaurant back into the building. That motion was granted in its entirety.