A&R Real Estate, Inc. v. Dorian New York LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-06976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In A&R Real Estate v. Dorian New York, Judge Ramos allowed a summary-judgment motion and stayed discovery while it is considered.
A&R Real Estate, Inc. was permitted to seek summary judgment, and discovery involving the parties was stayed while that motion was considered. The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying lease dispute.
What happened
A&R Real Estate, Inc. v. Dorian New York LLC concerns a landlord’s claim that the tenant failed to pay rent under a 10-year commercial lease made before the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff said the lease, security deposit, lack of rent payments, and the tenant’s departure were undisputed.
The plaintiff asked to file a motion for summary judgment, which seeks a ruling without a trial when the important facts are not genuinely disputed. It argued that the defendants’ defenses and counterclaims—including claims based on frustration of purpose, impossibility, reformation, and return of the security deposit—could not succeed under the lease.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the plaintiff could move for summary judgment and that discovery would be stayed while the motion was considered. The text does not show a ruling on the merits of the lease claims, defenses, or counterclaims.
The detailed version
- A&R Real Estate, Inc. v. Dorian New York LLC · No. 1:20-cv-06976
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
The plaintiff brought an action for breach of a commercial lease. In a December 11, 2020 letter requesting a pre-motion conference, the plaintiff stated that the parties had entered a 10-year lease before the COVID-19 pandemic, that the tenant had paid a security deposit, that the tenant had not paid rent under the lease, and that it had left before the lease term ended. The plaintiff said these facts were undisputed and disputed the defendants’ contention that the tenant had not taken possession. The letter stated that the tenant had displayed a sign with its name at the premises.
Plaintiff’s arguments
The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ affirmative defenses were conclusory or unsupported. It relied on a lease provision stating that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent would not be affected, impaired, or excused by the owner’s inability or delay in performing lease obligations because of government restrictions, government orders, war, or another emergency. The plaintiff also argued that a commercial landlord had no duty to mitigate rent damages and that the lease provision defeated defenses based on impossibility, impracticability, frustration of purpose, and offset.
The plaintiff challenged four counterclaims. It argued that temporary COVID-19 restrictions did not substantially frustrate the lease’s purpose; that the lease allocated the risk of government restrictions to the tenant; that the tenant alleged no fraud or mutual mistake supporting reformation of the lease or guarantee; and that the tenant had no basis for returning the security deposit.
Order
The plaintiff requested permission to file a summary-judgment motion and asked that discovery be stayed until the motion was decided. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the law and undisputed facts show that a party is entitled to judgment. The endorsed order states: “IT IS SO ORDERED.” The text indicates that the court permitted the plaintiff to move for summary judgment and stayed discovery pending a decision on that motion.
The opinion text does not contain a ruling granting or denying summary judgment, and it does not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s lease claim, the defendants’ defenses, or the counterclaims. The classification is therefore procedural because the order concerns the timing and handling of a proposed motion and discovery rather than the underlying legal dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.