Leasing Illustrated
November 2012
Issue #10

Forward to
a Friend

Sign up for
this Newsletter

See our

Madison Park

Every lease includes all kinds of fees and charges, many of which can be hard for a tenant to understand, particularly when being charged an additional "administrative" fee to boot.

In this newsletter we examine the problems of one tenant being charged such an administrative fee on top of the fees and charges for the landlord's services, even though no such administrative charge is permitted under its lease.

Alan Katz
Mintz & Gold LLP 


When Your Lease Charges You For Luggage


I am writing this newsletter while on a flight to Minneapolis and remain astounded that airlines charge for luggage. It is as if you ordered a sandwich and got charged extra for the bread. And let's not forget about the additional cost for in-flight meals, earphones, seats with legroom, oxygen, etc.

Ahem, I suppose attorneys in glass houses should be careful, since most law firms charge liberally for "disbursements", such as telephone, faxes and copying. (Free self-promoting plug: to avoid this moral turpitude and because we are such exceptionally nice guys, Mintz & Gold only charges for actual out-of-pocket third-party disbursements with no mark-up).

As one might expect, leases also often "nickel and dime" tenants for all kinds of services, bringing to mind that rapacious landlord/innkeeper, the "Master of the House" from Les Miserables ("everybody loves a landlord... but nothing gets you nothing, everything has got a little price"...).

Many leases create a little monopoly and require that tenants use landlords for certain necessary services which could be more economically handled outside of the lease, such as changing light bulbs and cleaning. These charges have become accepted practice (other than in larger leases) and tenants primarily focus on requiring market pricing.

Some landlords also charge an "administrative fee, on top of the already overpriced monopoly service.

Recently, one of our favorite clients came to us because their landlord was charging a 15% administrative charge even though no provision of the lease allowed such fee. But when confronted with the lease terms, the landlord's response was that the fee was part of their "customary practice", implicit and not specifically prohibited by the lease. I realize that it is election season, but can everyone just start making things up?

The real irony is that although this tenant would certainly win on this point in court, and the supervisory fees over a ten year lease would be unreasonably high and improper (probably around $25,000 or $30,000), it may not be enough to justify the cost of litigation. And being in technical "default" could lead to a landlord claim that the tenant is not entitled to certain future benefits, such as a reduction in the security deposit or exercise of expansion or extension rights (not to mention being subject to accumulating late charges and interest). If not resolved, the accumulated charges could also be pulled out of the security deposit at the end of the term.

So what can a tenant do when confronted with improper fees or charges where the cost-benefit analysis does not make litigation a reasonable alternative?

We suggest the following six approaches:
  • To the extent possible, specify the particular prohibition in the lease. It is not possible to think of and set out each possible landlord transgression. We all know thou shalt not kill, but it does not necessarily belong in your escalation provision. But do your best to be as specific as possible to avoid any wiggle room.
  • Strongly resist attempts by ownership to charge fees outside the boundary of the lease terms. Refusal to pay such administrative fees and letters in protest from tenant executives and counsel can be effective in forcing the landlord to back down.

    Litigation will require a cost-benefit analysis, but may be worth pursuing, or at least commencing in the hope of reaching a settlement (it is amazing sometimes how being served with papers can jolt parties into being reasonable). One caveat: if you are a law firm tenant, it will likely not cost you too much to commence and even pursue litigation and the landlord will know this and may be less inclined to go down this road.
  • Consider timing when you escalate the dispute. You should always record your displeasure up front, but you may wish to pay under protest until particular important milestones have passed. For example, if your security deposit will be reduced after the third lease year, you may want to wait until the reduction is in place. This only delays the inevitable conflict, but should be part of your calculations.
  • Include prevailing party attorney fee provisions under your lease. These can be hard to obtain, but the requirement that the landlord pay your attorneys' fees if you are successful in litigating a dispute will tilt the cost-benefit analysis in your favor and may make a prudent landlord pull back once aware of your strong resistance.
  • Include mediation or expedited arbitration/dispute resolution mechanisms in your lease. An objective third-party's input might show the landlord the unreasonableness of its position and a relatively quick and inexpensive option might alter your cost-benefit analysis.
  • Be open to compromises that could benefit both parties. Despite the fun we poke at them, most landlords are not inherently evil. Sometimes these situations arise for no more sinister reason than that the landlord and/or its managing agent does customarily charge an administrative fee and nobody bothered to review the lease terms (or maybe they were just seeing if they could get you to pay for that headset).

    Mutually beneficial outcomes can arise in these situations. For example, you might be satisfied with a waiver of accumulated fees and charges to date, a reduction in the amount of the fee charged going forward and/or a reduction of the instances in which the fee would be invoked (i.e., allowing different vendors to perform certain maintenance functions - avoiding the need to pay $500 to change a light bulb might alone put you ahead).
Well, Mintz & Gold has turned off the fasten seat belt sign and you are now free to roam about our newsletter. Keep the suggestions above in mind if your landlord attempts to charge improper administrative fees and you can avoid some turbulence in your lease.

Recent Case


When is a lease not a lease? Calling an agreement a lease does not by itself make it a lease. The crucial question is whether exclusive control and possession has been passed to the tenant. In a recent case, Women's Interart Center v. New York City Economic Development Corp (97 A.D.3d 17, 944 N.Y.S.2d 137 (1st Dept. 2012), Women's Interart Center (WIC) leased from NYC on a month-to-month basis certain space on West 52nd Street in Manhattan. Subsequently, the City entered into an agreement with the Clinton Housing Development Fund Corp (CHDFC) which they called a "net lease" and which covered WIC's buildings. Although called a net lease, in 2006 the City sent a letter to WIC advising that CHDFC would assume management of the property that "you currently lease" from the City. The City sent similar letters to WIC in subsequent years. In 2007, CHDFC notified WIC that it was terminating its tenancies and commenced proceedings to evict WIC. WIC commenced its own action in NY Supreme Court (trial Court in NY), which held that CHDFC lacked standing to terminate WIC because the agreement was a management agreement, not a net lease. The Appellate Division reversed on appeal and held that the agreement was in fact a lease between the City and CHDFC. The Court held that the mere fact that an agreement is called a lease is not sufficient and that the critical question in establishing a landlord-tenant relationship is whether exclusive control of the premises passed to the tenant. The Court found that this agreement imposed on CHDFC the responsibility for all expenses (repairs, insurance etc.) and sole authority to lease and bring legal actions against tenants, while reserving rights of inspection and curing of defaults, all consistent with a lease. In contrast, the Court stated that a management agreement is merely a service contract which involves the collection of rents and day-to-day management, but does not delegate exclusive dominion and control over the premises.

About Us


Mintz & Gold prides itself on providing the highest quality legal representation often associated with large law firms with the attention and reasonable costs of a smaller law firm.  Mintz & Gold's Real Estate Department has a national practice specializing in a broad range of commercial real estate law, with a particular focus on commercial leasing. We have extensive experience with respect to office, retail and shopping center leasing, and have represented major Manhattan landlords, national and multinational institutional tenants and national retail chains. Most of our attorneys practiced for many years at large institutional law firms before joining Mintz & Gold.

For more information regarding Mintz & Gold's real estate practice, click here.

For a list of representative transactions of Mintz & Gold's real estate group, click here.

For Mintz & Gold's website, click here.

Alan Katz
Telephone: (212) 696-4848
Fax: (212) 696-1231

You are receiving this newsletter because you signed up to receive it
or are a client, a friend or have worked with us on a prior transaction.
To ensure that you continue to receive emails from us, please add
katz@mintzandgold.com to your address book today.

To subscribe to this newsletter,
send an email with your request to: katznewsletter@mintzandgold.com

Mintz & Gold respects your privacy.
We do not sell, rent, or share your information with anybody,
and will only use your contact data to provide this newsletter.


This newsletter has been prepared for general information purposes only, and is provided with the understanding and subject to the user's agreement that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Mintz & Gold LLP, and does not create any attorney-client or other special relationship. The content of this newsletter may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. You should not rely upon this newsletter without seeking legal advice from an attorney licensed in the relevant jurisdiction(s). THE CONTENT OF THIS NEWSLETTER IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITH NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. Additionally, the information contained in this newsletter does not constitute tax advice. Any discussion of tax matters contained in this newsletter is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter.

Copyright © 2012 Alan Katz. All rights reserved.

You may reproduce this article by including this copyright and, if reproducing it electronically,
including a link to www.mintzandgold.com.

Newsletter developed by Blue Penguin Development.

No attorneys were harmed in the production of this newsletter.