Guy v Washington, 2014 NY Slip Op 51247(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
When I was practicing landlord tenant matters and I represented the tenant, one of the things I always tried to get into a stipulation of settlement in a holdover or non-payment proceeding was a general release for all liability for the rental periods subsequent to the date of issuance of the warrant or the date after client was supposed to vacate. My fear once came true when a client told me they got served for unpaid rent for the period following their vacatur of the premises. The law unclear. I saw this case and I wonder if this now represents the new authority on this level of landlord obnoxiousness:
“The applicable rule of law is that where a landlord, before the end of the term, requests a tenant to vacate and the tenant complies, the landlord is estopped from enforcing the lease. In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Childs Co. (230 NY 285, 292-293 [1921] [citations omitted]), the Court of Appeals stated as follows:
“An estoppel rests upon the word or deed of one party upon which another rightfully relies and so relying changes his position to his injury. When this occurs it would be inequitable to permit the first to enforce what would have been his rights under other circumstances. Doubtless should a landlord, before the end of his term, request a tenant to vacate his premises and should the tenant comply, or should he directly or indirectly command that this be done, and should the tenant obey, the landlord might no longer enforce the lease because he would be estopped if for no other reason.”
