Super Nova 330 LLC v. Gazes
693 F.3d 138
2d Cir.2012Background
- Super Nova leased commercial space to AGC under a lease expiring Feb. 28, 2007.
- AGC stopped paying rent in 2006; Super Nova obtained a warrant of eviction in NY Civil Court.
- AGC filed Chapter 7 on Feb. 2, 2007, triggering automatic stay; eviction could not proceed pending stay relief.
- Bankruptcy Court granted lift-stay; Super Nova evicted AGC on Apr. 24, 2007 and regained possession.
- Super Nova sought post-petition rent, fees, and interest under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) for Feb. 2–Apr. 24, 2007.
- Bankruptcy Court and District Court held the lease was not unexpired, denying administrative expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the lease unexpired under 365(d)(3) when eviction warrant issued pre-petition but not executed? | Super Nova argues NY law allows revival of the lease and keeps it unexpired. | Trustee contends the lease is terminated pre-petition, so not unexpired. | Lease is unexpired; remand for further state-law revival/possession analysis. |
| Should a terminated yet unexpired lease be presumptively rejected by the Trustee or affirmatively rejected? | Trustee action should be required to reject to avoid perpetual exposure. | Trustee may reject or allow revival; ambiguity warrants resolution. | Remand to decide whether Trustee must affirmatively reject. |
| What is the controlling possession status for determining entitlement to administrative expenses? | Possession unresolved; needs factual development to determine entitlement. | Possession contested; questions of fact preclude ruling on administrative claim. | Remand to resolve possession issue on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stoltz, 197 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 1999) (state-law revival can keep a lease unexpired)
- In re Canney, 284 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2002) (issuance of writ of possession extinguishes redemption rights)
- Sweet N Sour 7th Ave. Corp., 431 B.R. 63 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (state-law reinstate/eviction dynamics in NY context)
- In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard; factual disputes govern)
- Robinson v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 54 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 1995) (redeeming rights in housing context; relevance to revival concepts)