The Carlyle, LLC, against Quik Park Beekman II, LLC
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. represents The Carlyle Hotel in a hotly contested holdover eviction proceeding against its former parking garage tenant that serviced the famous hotel. Recently, the firm secured two key victories in the case against the former garage tenant, despite vigorous opposition by the tenant’s attorney, David Rozenholc.
The first was an award after a hearing before Judge Anthony J. Cannataro in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, in which the firm secured a monetary judgment of more than $700,000 in attorneys’ fees and disbursements for its client including fees for the proceeding and the lengthy attorneys’ fee hearing. This decision followed an earlier award of partial summary judgment to The Carlyle on the issue of possession and the issuance of money judgments against two Quik Park entities totaling nearly $1.7 million for post-termination use and occupancy plus prejudgment statutory interest.
The firm’s second recent victory was at the Appellate Term, which affirmed the original $1.7 million use and occupancy awards. Quik Park held over in the premises for five months following the termination of the lease, despite lease clauses that provided for double rent, plus $25,000 per month, for any period in which the tenant held over. The Civil Court (Cohen, J.) awarded judgment against tenant Quik Park Beekman II for nearly $1.3 million in reliance upon the holdover provisions of the lease. Judge Cohen also awarded judgment against Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, an entity which had paid rent for the premises prior to the holdover and which had asserted possessory rights to the premises. The judgment against Quik Park 1633 Garage totaled $410,000 for five months’ holdover use and occupancy based on the Judge’s determination of the fair market value of the space.
On the respondents’ appeals, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. defeated all arguments raised by opposing counsel. The Appellate Term rejected the respondents’ argument that the double rent, plus $25,000 per month use and occupancy agreed to in the lease was an unenforceable penalty, holding instead that the clause represented an appropriate measure of liquidated damages. The Appellate Term also held that the respondents’ constructive eviction and actual partial eviction claims were properly dismissed because The Carlyle’s installation of scaffolding was authorized by the lease and was precluded in any event by the lease’s liquidated damages provisions. On The Carlyle’s cross-appeal, the firm successfully reversed the Civil Court’s prior dismissal of the use and occupancy claim against two other Quik Park entities that had previously assigned their interests in the lease to Quik Park Beekman II.