Case Study
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Protects a Commercial Landlord from a Tenant’s Attempt to Expand a Dangerous HVAC and Gas Line Project
Representing a commercial landlord in a Kings County, Supreme Court action, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. defeated a tenant’s application for a preliminary injunction, brought by order to show cause, in which the tenant sought broad permission to expand its dangerous and unlawful HVAC and gas line operations.
In companion commercial eviction proceedings, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. obtained judgments of possession against the Brooklyn supermarket tenant based on the tenant’s breaches of a commercial lease. The tenant appealed and obtained a stay on eviction pending appeal.
During this time, the tenant continued to operate the supermarket in a dangerous and unlawful manner, racking up multiple Environmental Control Board and New York City Fire Department violations concerning its HVAC equipment and gas lines, culminating in a physical shutoff by National Grid, after DOB determined that the gas lines and gas meter were over capacity. Moreover, the tenant desired to further expand its operations by nearly doubling its gas line capacity, seeking to run new gas lines through other tenants’ spaces.
The owner provided legitimate responses and objections to the tenant’s defective plans. The tenant filed a Supreme Court action alleging (i) breach of contract, (ii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iii) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and (iv) wrongful eviction.
The tenant also filed an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction (i) deeming the owner to have consented to the tenant’s proposed work, (ii) granting to the tenant permission to perform any required work, and (iii) enjoining the owner to sign all required permits and other documents necessary to undertake the project.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. opposed the motion arguing that (i) the motion does not seek to preserve the status quo, rather to change it, (ii) the requested relief is overbroad, (iii) the tenant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, (iv) the tenant failed to allege damages of a non-economic nature, thus failing to demonstrate the required element of irreparable harm, (v) the equities balance in the owner’s favor and against the grant of a preliminary injunction, and (vi) the tenant sought via its preliminary injunction the ultimate relief in the action, which should not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
The court conducted extensive oral argument after which it denied the tenant’s motion in its entirety adopting our arguments. The court held that the tenant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, sought to change the status quo rather than to maintain it, that the equities do not balance in the tenant’s favor, and that the tenant did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances for the grant of ultimate relief.
Vladimir Mironenko and Jeffrey R. Metz of Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. represented the commercial landlord.