JUDGMENT WASN’T SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE
After it entered into a five-year lease, a commercial tenant reconfigured the interior of its space -- removing offices and relocating the bathroom. Before that lease expired, the owner demanded that the space be restored to its original condition. While the tenant undertook some work, it failed to address the offices and the bathroom.
When the tenant later filed suit with the Queens County Supreme Court to recoup its $100,000 security deposit, the landlord counter-sued for restoration costs. And after trial, the owner was awarded $883,243.21 (including interest).
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that the court below had “properly determined” that the lease agreement obligated the tenant to undertake the work but took issue with the monetary award granted to the landlord. Apparently, the AD2 was of the view that the evidence in the record only supported $228,487.50 in costs and, after subtracting the tenant’s $100,000 security deposit, determined that the owner should only recover $128,487.50 (with interest thereon).
There’s no altering that.
# # #
DECISION
Valco Bldg. & Maintenance Supplies Corp. v Werwaiss & Co., Inc.