Holy Properties Limited, L.P. v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
661 N.E.2d 694 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial landlord is under no obligation or duty to mitigate damages by reletting, or attempting to relet, premises abandoned by a tenant. A lease is a transfer of an estate in real property, not merely an executory contract, and the parties are free to contractually hold the tenant liable for rent even after eviction.
Facts:
- In 1985, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. entered into a written lease for commercial office premises in a Manhattan building.
- The lease term was for ten years, from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1994.
- The building ownership changed, and Holy Properties Limited, L.P. became the new owner.
- In December 1991, alleging a deterioration in building services, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. vacated the premises with three years remaining on the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Holy Properties Limited, L.P. commenced a summary eviction proceeding against defendant Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. for nonpayment of rent.
- The court granted Holy Properties a judgment and warrant of eviction on May 19, 1992.
- Holy Properties then filed this action in the New York Supreme Court (the trial court) seeking rent arrears and damages.
- At trial, Kenneth Cole asserted as an affirmative defense that Holy Properties failed to mitigate damages.
- The Supreme Court entered judgment for Holy Properties, ruling that it had no duty to mitigate.
- Kenneth Cole (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The case is now before the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, on further appeal by Kenneth Cole.
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 commercial landlord have a duty to mitigate damages by reletting the premises after a tenant breaches the lease by abandoning the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No. A commercial landlord does not have a duty to mitigate damages when a tenant abandons the leased premises. The court reasoned that leases are not ordinary executory contracts subject to a mitigation requirement; they are historically recognized as a present transfer of an estate in real property. Under this established property law principle, a lessee's obligation to pay rent is fixed by the lease terms, and a landlord has three options upon abandonment: (1) do nothing and collect the full rent due; (2) accept the tenant's surrender, re-enter, and relet for its own account, releasing the tenant; or (3) notify the tenant it is re-entering and reletting on the tenant's behalf. The court emphasized the importance of stare decisis and stability in real property law, declining to adopt the modern contract-based rule that would impose a duty to mitigate. Furthermore, the court held that even an eviction does not absolve the tenant of liability if the lease, like the one here, expressly provides that the tenant remains responsible for all monetary obligations.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New York's adherence to the traditional common law rule that commercial landlords have no duty to mitigate damages, reinforcing the view of a lease as a conveyance of property rather than a contract for services. The ruling provides certainty for commercial landlords and parties to real estate transactions, who rely on the stability of established legal precedents. By explicitly rejecting the modern trend of applying contract principles to commercial leases, the court signals that any change to this long-standing rule must come from the legislature, not the judiciary. This precedent places the full risk of abandonment on the commercial tenant.
Unlock the full brief for Holy Properties Limited, L.P. v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.