| Peros v Jurac |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 50819(U) [76 Misc 3d 1204(A)] |
| Decided on August 12, 2022 |
| Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County |
| Guthrie, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Mladen Peros, MIKE
PEROS, Petitioners,
against Sonja Jurac, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Respondents. |
Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of respondent's motion for a judgment for attorney's fees and other relief:
Papers &nbs p; NumberedUpon the foregoing cited papers, the decision and order on respondent's motion is as follows.
This holdover proceeding based on a notice of non-renewal was commenced in 2018. After motion practice, Judge Sergio Jimenez set the matter down for a traverse hearing by Decision/Order dated March 26, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the proceeding was sent out to Part X for traverse and trial. After additional adjournments in this trial part, the proceeding was discontinued without prejudice on July 30, 2019, as noted on the file jacket.[FN1] Subsequently, in December 2019, respondent made the instant motion for a judgment for attorney's fees. Following additional adjournments and the intervention of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the motion was fully briefed and this court heard argument on August 11, 2022.[FN2]
Respondent seeks attorney's fees upon an argument that her lease included an attorney's fees provision and that as the alleged prevailing party, she is entitled to reasonable fees pursuant to Real Property Law (RPL) § 234. Annexed to the motion are the lease and a breakdown of respondent's attorneys' hours spent litigating this proceeding. Petitioners oppose the motion, arguing that an ultimate outcome was never reached in the proceeding and that there was no prevailing party to whom fees should be awarded.
While respondent argues that petitioners withdrew this proceeding after offering a renewal lease, the renewal lease annexed as an exhibit to the motion (Exhibit D) is dated July 31, 2019 (and was executed in August 2019), and the discontinuance occurred prior thereto, on July 30, 2019. Additionally, the discontinuance "without prejudice" effectively reserved the right to maintain a subsequent proceeding and manifested the lack of an ultimate outcome. See J.P. & Assoc. Props. Corp. v. Krautter, 38 Misc 3d 60, 62 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013], affd sub. nom. Matter of J.P. & Assoc. Props. Corp. v. Krautter, 128 AD3d 963 [2d Dept 2015]. In the absence of an ultimate outcome, an award of attorney's fees pursuant to RPL § 234 is unwarranted. See Elkins v. Cinera Realty, Inc., 61 AD2d 828 [2d Dept 1978]. Moreover, to the extent that an "ultimate outcome" may have been reached thereafter by the execution of the renewal lease (cf. Isaly-Liceaga v. Pickarski, 199 AD3d 413, 414 [1st Dept 2021]), respondent's claim for fees in this proceeding has nonetheless been waived by her failure to expressly reserve the right to seek fees when the proceeding was discontinued. See Tapper v. Jedrusiejko, 74 Misc 3d 132 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; Beka Realty, LLC v. Gold, 65 Misc 3d 156[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51953[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019].
Accordingly, respondent's motion for a judgment for attorney's fees and other relief is denied. This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.