In a February 8, 2011 decision by Justice Pines, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew and reargue its denied motion for a preliminary injunction upon concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law. The gravamen of the reargument and renewal motion was that a reassignment of lease executed between the plaintiff and a third party was not released by the escrow agent and therefore, did not entitle the defendant landlord to possession of the property. The court deemed that argument unpersuasive because the record did not show that the plaintiff took any steps to seek such release when it had the opportunity to do so. The court also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, upon finding that they made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was not entitled to the subject premises because the issuance of an eviction warrant terminated any existing tenancy and annulled the landlord-tenant relationship, and because the plaintiff held no interest in the leasehold once it reassigned the lease to a third party.
C&D Car Wash, Inc. v Mroczkowski, Sup Ct, Suffolk County, February 8, 2011, Pines, J, Index No. 14427/10