Defendant Saratoga Auto Brokers ("SAB") moves by Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction restoring it to the leased premises known as 23 Northern Pines Road No.3102 Wilton NY. In support of the motion, SAB submits the affidavit of its principal, Nicholas Massaroni. According to Mr. Massaroni, SAB is a licensed auto broker operating out of the premises at issue pursuant to a September 1, 2018, lease. Based upon the record it appears that part of the consideration for the lease included Massaroni's facilitation in subletting two of the three offices located within the leased premises to subtenants, each for $1,500.00 per month.

SAB enjoyed occupancy until sometime in November of 2021 when plaintiff Matthew Gabryshak changed the locks on the leased premises without permission from the lessee, and without a court order. In short, Mr. Gabryshak exercised self-help. It should be noted that [*2]SAB's principal is the son of co-defendant David Massaroni, an equal partner in plaintiff Ridgeview Commons Townhomes, LLC and The Crossings at Northern Pines, LLC (collectively "The Crossings"). At some point prior to the lockout, a dispute arose between Matthew Gabryshak and David Massaroni with respect to the operation of The Crossings. SAB contends that it was vindictively evicted from the leased premises because Nicholas Massaroni is David Massaroni's son. SAB further contends that it has fully performed pursuant to the terms of the lease and that Plaintiff had no just cause to remove him from the premises but has done so illegally and in violation of the lease terms.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, submitting the opposition affidavit of Matthew Gabryshak who contends that the lease is invalid since it was only executed by David Massaroni in contravention of the operating agreement of The Crossings. Plaintiff further contends that, in any event, the lease would have expired one month after the lock out, on December 31, 2021. He contends that a letter dated November 22, 2021, was the functional equivalent of a 30-day notice prior to the expiration of the "renewal term." It should be noted that the letter does not express to SAB that its lease would be terminated effected December 31, 2021. Rather, it appears to be a letter to Nicholas Massaroni, individually, terminating him as property manager of The Crossings.

With respect to the contention that the lease is invalid as it was executed solely by one member of The Crossings, the contention is belied by the record. It is clear that the common practice of The Crossings was for one member to execute lease agreements throughout the development. Indeed, Gabryshak himself has family members occupying units within the property. Accordingly, the Court determines that the lease is valid. The lease terms provide as follows:

TERM. The lease term will begin on September 1, 2018 and will terminate on December 31, 2020.

RENEWAL TERMS. This lease shall automatically renew for an additional period of one year per renewal term, unless either party gives written notice of termination no later than 30 days prior to the end of the term or renewal term. The lease terms during any such renewal term shall be the same as those contained in the lease.

NOTICE Notices under this lease shall not be deemed valid unless given or served in writing and forwarded by mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

TENANT

SARATOG A AUTO BROKERS LLC

23 NORTHERN PINES ROAD 3102

WILTON NY 12831

As set forth above, the November 22, 2021, letter was not directed to SAB. Therefore, the notice provisions pursuant to the term of the lease have not been complied with and the termination is ineffective.

It is well settled that a party moving for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: 1) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; 2) likelihood of success on the merits; and 3) the balancing of equities in its favor (Karabatos v. Hagopian, 39 AD3d 930, 931 [3d Dept 2007]; Walsh v. St. Mary's Church, 248 AD2d 292, 273 [3d Dept 1998]). As set forth above, the Court has concluded that defendant SAB is likely to succeed on the merits given that the lease is valid and the termination ineffective. Moreover, the Court concludes that the equities favor the [*3]SAB, and that this dispute is simply a corollary to a larger one involving the members of The Crossings. Defendant SAB is not part of that dispute and did not manage the property. Accordingly, whether to grant a preliminary injunction whittles down to an analysis of whether SAB has suffered irreparable injury.

Plaintiff contends that SAB has not suffered irreparable injury since there is "nothing unique about the Ridgeview's offices." Plaintiff's position is, simply put, that SAB can perform the same function in any office, and therefore has not suffered irreparable harm. Evidence of the availability of similar properties is insufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether SAB has an adequate remedy at law since the uniqueness of real property is presumed (Alba v. Kaufmann, 27 AD3d 816 [3d Dept 2006]). Indeed, this principle includes not only property in fee simple, but a leasehold interest as well (see IHP Corp v. 210 Central Park South Corp, 16 AD2d 461 [1st dept 1962]). Based upon the foregoing the Court holds that depriving SAB of its leasehold interest in the property at issue without legal justification constitutes irreparable harm such that a preliminary injunction restoring SAB to the property is the appropriate remedy.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that SAB's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that SAB shall be restored to the leased premises pursuant to the terms of the lease and to reflect the status quo as of the date of its irregular eviction.

Order to Show Cause; Affirmation of John Harwick Esq., with annexed exhibits; Affidavit of Nicholas Massaroni; Affidavit of David Massaroni; Affirmation of Christopher Priore, Esq.; Affidavit of Matthew Gabryshak, with annexed exhibits; Memorandum of Law in Opposition; Affidavit in Reply of Nicholas Massaroni, with annexed exhibit.