In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the dismissal of a case involving H. Roske & Associates LLP and ESRT Empire State Building LLC. The court's decision, issued on October 6, 2026, impacts commercial tenants and landlords by clarifying the limits of constructive eviction claims.
The dispute arose when H. Roske & Associates, a commercial tenant, claimed it was constructively evicted from its premises in the Empire State Building. The case, indexed under 655283/24, reached the appellate court after the lower court dismissed the tenant's complaint. The ruling is significant as it addresses the rights of tenants regarding constructive eviction and the implications of lease agreements.
H. Roske & Associates LLP, represented by Steven A. Lucia, filed the lawsuit against ESRT Empire State Building LLC, which was defended by David S. Pegno of Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky, LLP. The central issue in the case was whether the tenant had valid grounds for claiming constructive eviction, which occurs when a tenant is forced to leave a property due to the landlord's actions or inactions that make the premises uninhabitable.
The dispute escalated to the appellate court after the Supreme Court, New York County, ruled in favor of the landlord. The lower court found that the tenant had expressly waived its rights to claim constructive eviction in the lease agreement. This waiver played a crucial role in the appellate court's decision.
The Appellate Division unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling, stating, "Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion because plaintiff, a commercial tenant, expressly waived its constructive eviction rights in the lease and is therefore precluded from now asserting a constructive eviction cause of action." The ruling emphasized that even if the tenant had not waived its rights, the complaint did not sufficiently allege the necessary elements for a constructive eviction claim.
The court further noted that the tenant failed to demonstrate how it was "substantially and materially deprived... of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises" as required to establish a constructive eviction. The ruling referenced previous cases to reinforce its decision, indicating that the tenant's claims did not meet the legal standards set forth in New York law.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the tenant did not identify any specific provision of the lease that had been breached, which further justified the dismissal of the complaint. The judges involved in the ruling included Mendez, J.P., Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, and Rosado.
This ruling carries significant implications for commercial tenants and landlords in New York. It clarifies that tenants must be aware of the terms of their lease agreements, especially regarding waivers of rights. The decision also reinforces the importance of adequately alleging claims in legal complaints, as failing to do so can lead to dismissal.
Going forward, this ruling may deter tenants from pursuing constructive eviction claims if they have waived such rights in their lease agreements. It serves as a reminder that landlords and tenants must carefully negotiate and understand the terms of their leases to avoid potential legal disputes.
While the court's decision is final in this case, it is possible for the tenant to seek further legal recourse, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for appeal. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.