Printer Friendly

Chronic non-payment basis for eviction.

Chronic non-payment basis for eviction

Judge Wilford O'Connor has held that a tenant's repeated default in the payment of rent constituted a violation of a substantial obligation of the tenancy, such that the owner was awarded a final judgment of possession, with the case set down for a hearing on "use and occupancy" and attorneys fees.

As a result of the non-payment, the owner was compelled to commence six non-payment proceedings during a three-year period.

In West Coast Co. vs. Grafi, a summary eviction proceeding was brought against the commercial tenant based upon the tenant's chronic non-payment of rent, encompassing more than 30 of the 48 monthly payments due during the relevant time period.

Based upon the commercial tenant's chronic default in the payment of rent, the owner, represented by the law firm of Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, opted to bring an eviction proceeding seeking the termination of the tenancy, rather than simply bringing yet another non-payment proceeding, seeking to collect the rent.

The court noted that the obligation to pay rent under a lease in a timely manner is a primary obligation of a tenancy, such that the tenant's failure to timely comply constitutes a breach of a substantial obligation of the lease. In examining whether or not the failure on the part of the tenant warranted the termination of the leasehold and the eviction of the tenant, the court stated that it must examine "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the delinquency".

After a thorough examination of all of the credible evidence before the court, Judge O'Connor found that the tenant's present rent delinquencies, as well as those in the prior non-payment proceedings "were not due to any abatement defenses or inaccurate calculations of rent or any other reasonable excuse". As a result, the court found that the tenant had, indeed, breached a substantial obligation under the lease, and awarded a final judgment of possession in favor of the landlord.

Jeffrey L. Goldman, partner in Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman stated:

"This commercial tenant apparently believed that it could continue in violation of its lease without fear that it might ultimately pay the penalty of forfeiture of the tenancy. The court correctly found that there was no persuasive logic or rationale underlying the tenant's failure to pay rent. Only by terminating the landlord-tenant relationship and awarding a final judgment of possession to the owner, coupled with an award of use and occupancy and attorneys fees, could the owner be made whole."
COPYRIGHT 1991 Hagedorn Publication
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1991, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Real Estate Weekly
Date:Sep 4, 1991
Words:412
Previous Article:Condo prices fall 4.6% in Manhattan.
Next Article:Crow, partner 'lock up' PA correctional facility.
Topics:


Related Articles
Non-buying tenants cannot sue sponsor.
Owner without C of O can still sue for rent.
Chronic late rent payment real nuisance.
Interpreting the no-offsets and waiver of counterclaims clauses.
Next up: deposits for commercial actions.
Court favors owners on relet obligations.
Retained but returned rent checks don't vitiate notices.
Legal fees awarded landlord are calculated by the court.
Applications of the Pet Law in tenant-landlord disputes.
'Martin Act' Protection Against Eviction.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters