Tobin v. Gluck
684 F. App'x 61
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Parties: Helene Tobin (plaintiff) sued Ivan and Phyllis Gluck (defendants) over breach of a 2007 settlement agreement (the Stipulation) resolving a lease dispute concerning property at 3480 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn.
- District court (E.D.N.Y.) after a bench trial awarded Tobin $604,500 for remediation costs and then reduced that award by $17,421.02 (the interest-adjusted security deposit), yielding a $587,078 judgment; Glucks appealed and Tobin cross-appealed the offset.
- Central factual dispute: whether the Stipulation’s term “captioned premises” included the underlying land and groundwater (not just the building) and whether contamination required remediation by vapor extraction.
- Damages dispute: Tobin’s expert proposed vapor extraction (~$600,000); defendants’ expert proposed soil removal (<$100,000) but gave no on-site testing or cost estimate for chemical injection, which defendants argued might be cheaper.
- Security deposit dispute: Beaaro, Inc. (assignee) paid a security deposit in 2002 payable to Beaaro upon full compliance; district court found breach prevented return but offset Tobin’s award by the amount to avoid overcompensation under NY landlord-tenant law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of “captioned premises” | "Premises" includes building plus underlying land and groundwater; common meaning supports this | "Premises" should be limited to the building structure, not land/groundwater | Court: term covers building and underlying land/groundwater; lease language and common law presumption support inclusion |
| Standard of review for interpretation | (not disputed as outcome same) | (not outcome-determinative) | Court assumed de novo or clear-error and found no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of remediation evidence / damages | Vapor extraction is a reasonable remediation method; expert supported cost and feasibility (~$600k) | Vapor extraction unreasonable because alternative (chemical injection) not tested/priced; defendants’ cheaper method (soil removal) preferable | Court: Tobin met burden; evidence supports vapor extraction as reasonable; defendants’ experts lacked on-site testing and cost details, so award stands |
| Security deposit offset | Tobin: offset benefits non-party Beaaro; Tobin should not lose award by crediting deposit to defendants | Defendants: deposit should reduce Tobin’s recovery because they (acting for Beaaro) would otherwise be entitled | Court: offset proper; withholding deposit from Tobin without credit would overcompensate plaintiff in violation of NY law |
Key Cases Cited
- Brad H. v. City of New York, 17 N.Y.3d 180 (N.Y. 2011) (settlement agreements enforced according to plain language)
- Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to prove extent of harm)
- City of New York v. Penn. R.R. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 298 (N.Y. 1975) (measure of damages to restore surrendered leased property)
- Doyle v. Lord, 64 N.Y. 432 (N.Y. 1876) (lease of building generally conveys underlying land absent express exception)
- Peirson v. Lloyds First Mortg. Co., 260 N.Y. 214 (N.Y. 1932) (landlord may not retain deposit resulting in compensation beyond actual damages)
- Addieg v. Tull, 187 F. 101 (2d Cir. 1911) (same principle regarding security deposit and avoiding double recovery)