| Marsh v 300 W. 106th St. Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03719 [95 AD3d 560] |
| May 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Kellee Marsh, Respondent, v 300 West 106th St. Corp. etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Robert E. Sokolski of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered on March 3,2011, which denied defendants' motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's fourth cause of action,which sought attorneys' fees under Real Property Law § 234, unanimously affirmed, withcosts.
Although the lease provision at issue here appears to be reciprocal in nature, its reciprocity islimited. To wit, it provides that "[t]he successful party in a legal action or proceeding betweenLandlord and Tenant for non-payment of rent or recovery of possession of the Apartment mayrecover reasonable legal fees and costs from the other party." Since the lease permits the landlordto collect attorneys' fees when suing for breach of the lease's covenants, whether nonpayment ofrent or any other breach couched in a suit for recovery of possession, but does not accord thetenant attorneys' fees if successful against a landlord when suing for breach of the lease'scovenants, Real Property Law § 234 is triggered.
The overriding purpose of the legislation is to provide a level playing field between landlordsand tenants, "creating a mutual obligation that provides an incentive to resolve disputes quicklyand without undue expense" (Matter of Duell v Condon, 84 NY2d 773, 780 [1995]). "Asa remedial statute, Real Property Law § 234 should be accorded its broadest protectivemeaning [*2]consistent with legislative intent" (245 RealtyAssoc. v Sussis, 243 AD2d 29, 35 [1998]). In light of these guiding principals, artful draftingcannot be permitted to give an illusion of reciprocity, thus evading true equality.Concur—Tom J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.