Eserac Realty Corp. v. Social Adult Care, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 32123(U)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2025Background
- Eserac Realty Corp. owns a building at 516 West 181st St., NYC; in 2013, it loaned Courtney Riozzi funds to start a senior center, Social Adult Care, Inc. ("Adult Care"), which began operating in the building without a written lease.
- Adult Care agreed to pay $30,000 monthly rent once operational—payments began July 2015, but ceased after March 2020. Adult Care stayed in the premises until September 2021.
- Plaintiff commenced an earlier action for unpaid sums and ejectment, which was dismissed without prejudice after a stipulation to refer disputes to ADR; mediation failed.
- Plaintiff then filed this action, seeking use and occupancy for April 2020–September 2021, and summary judgment; defendants responded with counterclaims and multiple affirmative defenses, alleging serious repair failures and interference with their business.
- Both sides moved for dispositive relief prior to discovery: Eserac sought summary judgment, affirmative defense/claim dismissals; defendants cross-moved to dismiss and refer to ADR.
- After considering the parties' submissions, the court granted summary judgment to plaintiff in part, particularly as to Adult Care’s liability for use and occupancy, and dismissed or struck most defenses and counterclaims except as detailed below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary Judgment for Use & Occupancy | Defendants occupied premises without paying; liability is clear | Plaintiff failed to prove precise amount due; repair failures provide defenses | Granted against Adult Care; damages to be determined by Special Referee |
| Dismissal of Complaint (all claims) | Complaint states causes of action; defenses fail as matter of law | Pleadings and evidence refute plaintiff’s claims; ADR stipulation bars suit | Denied except for ejectment claim (moot as premises vacated) |
| Disposition of Counterclaims | All counterclaims should be dismissed, none are sufficiently alleged | Repair failures, inability to get emergency funding, harassment justify counterclaims | Only negligence (repairs & grant issues) and harassment claims survive; rest dismissed |
| Striking Affirmative Defenses | Most defenses are legally insufficient, conclusory, or moot | Various factual and legal offsets exist | Only select defenses remain (including those alleging repayment and offset for plaintiff’s negligence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. 1994) (liberal pleading construction on motion to dismiss)
- Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985) (summary judgment standards)
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986) (burden on summary judgment)
- JPMorgan Chase Funding, Inc. v. Cohan, [citation="2014 NY Slip Op 32115[U]"] (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2014) (claim for monies lent)
- Fives 160th, LLC v. Zhao, 204 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022) (pandemic does not excuse commercial lease obligations)
- Universal Communications Network, Inc. v. 229 W. 28th Owner, LLC, 85 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011) (rent is independent covenant in commercial lease)
- Mushlam, Inc. v. Nazor, 80 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011) (standard for use and occupancy recovery)