NYC Landlord Tenant, Commercial Litigation, & Real Estate Attorney
Schedule a Consultation 212-696-0090
Yellowstone Injunctions Pre-Litigation and Commercial Leases

Yellowstone Injunctions Pre-Litigation and Commercial Leases

Essentially, many commercial tenants when served with a Notice to Cure regarding an alleged breach of their commercial lease, do not realize that they must make application to the Supreme Court to toll the running of the Notice before the expiration of the tolling period.

In other words, many commercial tenants who find themselves on the receiving end of a Notice to Cure from their landlords wrongly believe that they can wait until the commencement of an action by the landlord to prove that they are not in breach of their lease.

In fact, this strategy of waiting until the landlord actually commences a legal action either in the Supreme Court, or in the Civil Court of the City of New York could prove fatal to the tenant’s lease since the lease is already deemed terminated by the end of the tolling period set forth in the Notice to Cure.

An office that is well-versed in these matters, and obtaining preliminary injunctions on behalf of commercial tenants is the Law Firm of Steven R. Sutton, that has been very successful in appropriate cases in showing that the time to cure set forth in the landlord’s Notice to Cure should be tolled, or frozen, pending the litigation of the landlord’s case.

Do not make this fatal mistake and contact the Law Office of Steven R. Sutton immediately upon receiving such a Notice to Cure from your landlord so that it is promptly and effectively handled and the landlord’s efforts to improperly terminate your lease are effectively stalled and you have a chance to prove your case in Court.

And then, approximately two years later, the Sutton Firm was victorious, following a four-day trial, in securing the dismissal of essentially all of the Plaintiff’s meritless claims for a declaration that he was a partner in the businesses of the Defendants, and for money damages for the four prior years in which the plaintiff was claiming profits were due him as an alleged “partner".

In fact, following cross-examination by Mr. Sutton, and the close of the plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cases, and following summations by the parties, the Court expressly said, in its oral Decision from the bench, that it did not find the plaintiff to be credible.

The case and the Court’s determinations are presently on appeal by the plaintiff, but it is expected that the plaintiff will not be successful.

S. R. S.

Contact Us Today

All Consultations are Free and Confidential
    • Please enter your name.
    • This isn't a valid phone number.
    • Please enter your email address.
      This isn't a valid email address.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please enter a message.