Camatron Sewing Machine, Inc. v. F.M. Ring Associates, Inc.
179 A.D. 2d 165 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lease provision authorizing a landlord to alter the 'public parts' of a building does not permit the landlord to permanently appropriate a portion of the tenant's exclusively demised premises. Any such permanent physical taking by the landlord, regardless of size, constitutes a partial actual eviction.
Facts:
- On July 18, 1984, plaintiff leased a store, basement, and the seventh floor of a building from R.C.M. Maintenance Co., Inc. for a 10-year term.
- The plaintiff used the ground-floor store space for its administrative and executive offices.
- The lease contained Article 13, which granted the owner the right to change the arrangement of 'public entrances, passageways, doors, doorways, corridors... or other public parts of the building.'
- On August 29, 1984, R.C.M. assigned the lease to the defendants Ring, who became the new landlords.
- In August 1988, defendant Frank Ring informed the plaintiff of a planned lobby renovation.
- The proposed renovation involved moving a lobby wall three feet into the plaintiff's leased store space, which would permanently eliminate 46.5 square feet.
- This loss of space constituted approximately 25% of the plaintiff's administrative office area.
- Plaintiff objected to the renovation, arguing it would adversely affect its business operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial-level court), seeking a judicial declaration of its rights under the lease and an injunction to stop the renovation.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and injunctive relief.
- Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and for an award of counsel fees.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the defendants' request for counsel fees.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
- Defendants (cross-appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of their request for counsel fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's permanent physical taking of a portion of a tenant's leased space for a lobby renovation constitute a partial actual eviction when the lease only authorizes the landlord to make changes to the 'public parts' of the building?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A landlord's permanent physical taking of a portion of a tenant's leased space constitutes a partial actual eviction and is not authorized by a lease provision allowing alterations to 'public parts' of the building. The court reasoned that Article 13 of the lease, which permits changes to public areas, does not explicitly or implicitly authorize the landlord to take a portion of the privately demised area. A tenant has the sole and exclusive right to undisturbed possession of the entire leased premises during the lease term. Therefore, the landlord's permanent appropriation of 46.5 square feet constitutes a partial actual eviction, as it deprives the tenant of possession. The court rejected the landlord's argument that the taking was de minimis, noting that even a 1% diminution of space has previously been held to be a partial actual eviction, and this taking represented 25% of the tenant's administrative office.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle that a tenant's right to exclusive possession is paramount and cannot be infringed upon by a landlord without explicit contractual authority. It clarifies that general lease clauses authorizing alterations to common or 'public' areas will be strictly construed and cannot be used to justify the permanent physical taking of a tenant's private, leased space. This decision serves as a significant protection for commercial tenants, preventing landlords from unilaterally reducing leased square footage under the guise of building-wide improvements. Future courts will likely require extremely specific and unambiguous lease language to permit a landlord to diminish a tenant's demised premises.
