Rivkin Radler LLP | Victorious at Appellate Division, Second Department and secure favorable order for insurance carrier

Rivkin Radler LLP (Uniondale, NY)

Jeremy Honig and Henry Mascia victorious at Appellate Division, Second Department; Glenn Egor and Chris Mango secure favorable order for insurance carrier

Jeremy Honig and Henry Mascia represented a commercial tenant in a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlord tried to terminate the client’s long-term lease with below-market rent when the client exercised its right to extend the term until 2033. The landlord claimed the client, an LLC, had no rights under the lease because the lease was initially signed by a related corporation, and the landlord did not consent to an assignment.

The tenant hired Rivkin Radler to start a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the LLC had succeeded to the rights of the corporation 20 years ago, during which time the landlord treated the LLC as the tenant by, among other things, accepting rent from the LLC every month without objection. The Supreme Court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that its client was the tenant under the lease and validly exercised the lease extension.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court order in its entirety and remanded to the Supreme Court for entry of the requested declaratory judgment.

Separately, Glenn Egor and Chris Mango secured a favorable order in a “rate jumper” declaratory judgment action declaring that the firm’s insurance carrier client is not obligated to provide coverage for first-party benefits because the policy address in Newburgh, New York, was fraudulent. The client showed that the policyholder actually resided in the Bronx and knowingly materially misrepresented facts to obtain an insurance policy for a significantly reduced premium.

The insurance carrier presented evidence that demonstrated: (1) the insured vehicle was insured under a Newburgh, New York, address when the insured resided in and garaged the insured vehicle at a Bronx, New York, address; (2) the policyholder likely never resided at and may never have been to the Newburgh address; (3) the insured’s New York drivers’ license and the police incident report listed the Bronx address as his home address; (4) the insured underwent almost all of her medical treatment in the Bronx and (5) the insured vehicle was repaired in the Bronx.