Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., Secures Order Requiring Tenant To Pay Use And Occupancy Of $527,000 Per Month During The Pendency Of A Nonpayment Proceeding

logo

Firm Achieves Outcome on the First Court Date

 

———-

 

For Immediate Release

PRESS CONTACT:
Shea Communications, LLC
George Shea, Mark Faris (212) 627-5766

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. successfully represented a Manhattan landlord in a commercial non-payment dispute, securing an order requiring the tenant to pay use and occupancy of $527,000 per month during the entire pendency of the proceeding. This multi-million-dollar result was achieved on the first day that the proceeding was returnable in court.

Rosenberg & Estis members Warren A. Estis and Norman Flitt, and associate Alexander M. Estis, represented the landlord before Judge Leslie A. Stroth in Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York.

Rosenberg & Estis opposed the commercial tenant’s motion to extend its time to answer the non-payment petition filed on behalf of the landlord. On the return date, Warren A. Estis and Alexander M. Estis successfully argued that pursuant to CPLR 2004, it is within the court’s discretion to extend the tenant’s answer, however, any extension must be conditioned upon terms that are just and fair.

After hearing the arguments, Judge Stroth granted the tenant’s motion to extend on the condition that the tenant tender use and occupancy in the amount of $527,000. Additionally, the court further ordered that the tenant pay use and occupancy, pendente lite.

With the recent amendments to RPAPL 745, which now limits a landlord’s ability to recover use and occupancy during summary proceedings, this landmark decision, issued March 3, 2020, demonstrates that landlords still have remedies available to them to recover use and occupancy.

“Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has a deep history of achieving results by finding creative solutions that provide advantages to our clients,” said Warren Estis. “This is yet another outside-the-box way that we have been able to achieve our objective.”