This case study examines how an eviction lawyer Brooklyn team successfully enforced a commercial lease termination and obtained possession of real property following persistent rent nonpayment. The matter highlights how New York courts apply statutory eviction standards when tenants remain in possession without satisfying rental obligations. Through structured evidence development and strict adherence to RPAPL procedures, the landlord achieved a full legal victory.
1. Eviction Lawyer Brooklyn | Client Background and Lease Dispute
The client was the owner of a mixed use commercial building located in Brooklyn, New York, and entered into a written commercial lease agreement with a tenant for ground floor retail space. The lease included a short rent free concession period intended to support the tenant’s initial build out and business launch. After the concession period expired, the tenant failed to comply with ongoing rent obligations while continuing to occupy and operate within the premises.
Lease Formation and Rent Free Concession
The lease agreement provided for a three month rent free period at the commencement of the tenancy, after which monthly rent became fully due and payable.
The agreement clearly stated that failure to pay rent for three consecutive rental periods constituted a material default permitting immediate lease termination.
Despite benefiting from the rent free period, the tenant remitted payment for only one month after the concession expired and thereafter ceased all rent payments entirely.
2. Eviction Lawyer Brooklyn | Notice, Default, and Legal Strategy
Once the tenant fell substantially behind on rent, the landlord retained an eviction lawyer Brooklyn to evaluate available remedies under New York law. Counsel conducted a detailed review of the lease provisions, payment history, and tenant communications to determine the most effective enforcement path. Given the tenant’s continued possession without payment, a nonpayment eviction proceeding under RPAPL Article 7 was initiated.
Statutory Notices and Termination Grounds
Pursuant to RPAPL §711(2), the landlord served a proper rent demand and subsequent notice of termination based on nonpayment.
The notices strictly complied with New York statutory requirements regarding service, timing, and content.
Although the tenant verbally promised to cure the arrears and requested additional time, no payments were ever made, and the tenant continued to occupy the property without legal justification.
3. Eviction Lawyer Brooklyn | Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments
The eviction lawyer Brooklyn team commenced a summary proceeding in Housing Court seeking possession of the premises and a judgment for outstanding rent. The petition relied on documentary evidence, including the executed lease, rent ledger, and proof of service of all statutory notices. The tenant attempted to argue that prior rent concessions excused future payment obligations, an argument unsupported by the lease language or New York law.
Enforcement of Lease and Rpapl Standards
Counsel emphasized that under New York Real Property Law §232-c, acceptance of limited prior payments does not revive or extend a tenancy following a valid termination.
The court was further directed to RPAPL §749, authorizing issuance of a warrant of eviction upon judgment.
The court found that the tenant remained in possession solely as a holdover without legal right and that all procedural eviction requirements had been satisfied.
4. Eviction Lawyer Brooklyn | Case Outcome and Legal Result
The court entered judgment in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenant to vacate the premises and pay all outstanding rent arrears. A warrant of eviction was issued, restoring full possession of the property to the owner. In addition, the court awarded statutory costs to the landlord, concluding the matter with a complete legal victory and enforcement of contractual and statutory rights.
Final Judgment and Property Recovery
As a result of the court’s ruling, the landlord successfully regained control of the Brooklyn property and was able to proceed with re leasing without further interference.
The case demonstrates how eviction lawyer Brooklyn representation can efficiently resolve nonpayment disputes when New York eviction statutes are properly applied.
