| Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Nawam Entertainment,Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09489 [57 AD3d 249] |
| December 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation,Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent, v NawamEntertainment, Inc., Doing Business as Euro World, Appellant. In the Matter of New York StateUrban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation,Appellant, v Nawam Entertainment, Inc., Doing Business as Euro World,Respondent. |
—[*1] Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York (Susan B. Kalib of counsel), forrespondent-appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 9,2008, dismissing a condemnation claim for the value of fixtures in leased premises operated byclaimant as an adult video establishment and awarding condemnor costs of $950, unanimouslyaffirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 2, 2006, whichdenied condemnor's motion to vacate the parties' stipulation insofar as it fixed the costs ofclaimant's video booths, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The clauses in claimant's lease providing that all compensation awarded on a taking of thepremises belonged to the landlord, and waiving the tenant's right to participate in any such award,only preclude claimant from asserting leasehold claims and from participating in any fee simpleaward payable to the landlord; they do not preclude claimant from asserting trade fixture claims(see Matter of City of New York, 256 NY 236, 243 [1931]; Gristede Bros. v State ofNew York, 11 AD2d 580 [1960]; United States v Certain Property Located in Borough ofManhattan, City, County and State of N.Y., 344 F2d 142, 150-151[*2][2d Cir 1965]). Nor do the lease clauses making fixtures andimprovements the property of the landlord upon installation while reserving to the tenant theright to remove "trade fixtures not attached or affixed to the building" equate or reduce tradefixtures to noncompensable personalty that is not in any manner or form attached or affixed tothe building (see Marraro v State of New York, 12 NY2d 285, 292-293 [1963]; Allynv State of New York, 11 AD2d 831 [1960]). Nevertheless, we affirm dismissal of the tradefixture claims, most of which involve 16 video booths and their wiring and video systems.Concerning these booths, the trial court credited the testimony of condemnor's appraiser that theywere secured to the floor only by screws, and rejected the testimony of claimant's principal thatthe booths were sealed to the floor with silicone such that moving them would cause theirbottoms to rip away. The record also establishes that claimant's store was not specially designedto house the booths, that the booths were of standard issue as opposed to any special design, andthat the booths were connected by wires to VCRs and electricity and could be moved around.Given such characteristics, the booths cannot be deemed trade fixtures (see Matter of City of New York [KaiserWoodcraft Corp.], 11 NY3d 353, 361 [2008], citing Matter of City of New York[430 E. 59th St. Corp.], 278 NY 276, 281-282 [1938]; see also Matter of New York CityTr. Auth. [Superior Reed & Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 AD2d 705, 706 [1990]). It does notavail claimant that the booths, if removed, would lose substantial value because they were placedin a certain order to maximize the efficiency of the space, would be difficult to sell assecondhand goods, and are obsolete (see Kaiser Woodcraft at 361-364). Other itemsclaimed were correctly rejected as obvious personalty (e.g., a rubberized floor mat, fireextinguishers, a window fan, hand trucks), or because they had become an integral part of thebuilding (e.g., an electric wall receptacle, a sprinkler system, circuit breaker distribution panels, acentral air conditioning system, aluminum framed glass entry doors, wooden baseboard trim, adrywall partition) (see Marraro, 12 NY2d at 291 [separate award cannot be made forfixtures if what are claimed to be fixtures have become part of the realty]), and therefore, underclaimant's lease, were the landlord's property. Concerning the items that the parties stipulatedwere fixtures (e.g., a roll-up steel security gate, a window sign, security mirrors, wall paneling,ceramic tiling, recessed fluorescent lighting), claimant failed to meet its burden of showing that ithad installed or owned such items, and thus cannot be compensated for them. Indeed, at trial,claimant presented no receipts, bills, or other evidence demonstrating that it paid for orpersonally installed or constructed these items. Finally, the trial court properly awarded costs tocondemnor. Absent a provision in the Eminent Domain Procedure Law on the subject of costs,CPLR 8101 governs (EDPL 703). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckleyand Sweeny, JJ.