The case G* E* LLC v. D revolves around a dispute over rent arrears and the enforcement of a settlement agreement. The Appellate Division, First Department upheld the New York County Supreme Court's ruling, affirming that the defendants, RF & AD, were bound by the terms of the settlement agreement they executed.
The dispute originated from a holdover proceeding between the plaintiff-landlord, G* E* LLC, and the nonparty tenant, T* F* D*, Inc. The defendants had guaranteed the tenant’s rent obligations, and as part of the settlement, they acknowledged that the tenant owed $1,475,043.11 in rent arrears. The agreement stipulated that if the tenant defaulted, the plaintiff could seek judgment against the defendants for this amount. The court ruled that the defendants could not now dispute the arrears, as they had already agreed to the sum in the settlement.
The defendants attempted to challenge the judgment by arguing that the amount violated criminal usury laws and New York Executive Orders, but the court rejected this argument under the doctrine of "res judicata." Since the defendants had the opportunity to raise these issues in prior proceedings but failed to do so, they were barred from litigating them now.
Additionally, the defendants argued that the remedies clause in the settlement agreement constituted an "impermissible liquidated damages provision," but the court dismissed that claim. The arrears represented a "sum certain," rather than an estimate or prediction, making it enforceable. The court also found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the arrears were grossly disproportionate to the amount initially sought before the settlement.
The defendants further contended that they should not be liable for charges accrued during the holdover period, but the court ruled that they were indeed responsible, as the Supreme Court had already determined their liability in a prior order, which was not appealed.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the broad waiver of defenses in the settlement agreement violated public policy. The ruling reinforces the principle that settlement agreements are binding, and parties cannot later attempt to escape their obligations by raising arguments they failed to present earlier.
This decision highlights the importance of contractual enforcement, the finality of settlements, and the limits of post-settlement challenges in commercial lease disputes. It serves as a reminder that parties must carefully consider the terms of agreements before signing, as courts will uphold them strictly.
Breaking News: Ignoring Rent Arrears Won’t Make Them Disappear
# # #
DECISION