On February 21, 2026, Russo & Gould Partner Marie Castronuovo successfully represented client 287 PAS LLC, winning a dismissal of plaintiff’s Complaint in the case of Trummer Hospitality v. 287 PAS LLC S/NY Index 157766/2024.

Trummer Hospitality sued 287 PAS to recover damages allegedly resulting from five water events occurring in their leased space due to the ineffectiveness of a partition wall to prevent water infiltration from another commercial tenant’s ejector/sump pump failure. The Complaint sought monetary damages as well as equitable relief on several causes of action based on negligence, negligent hiring/supervision of contractors, unjust enrichment and breach of lease for quite enjoyment and constructive eviction, among other things.

On motion, defendant established that Trummer had not paid rent under the lease and owed more than $300,000 in unpaid rent at the time of the motion. Defendant argued that the Complaint must be dismissed because tenant failed to perform the conditions precedent under the lease, including the payment of rent. Similarly, sections of the lease warranted dismissal of plaintiffs’ various other claims for breach, including constructive eviction, which could not be maintained by a tenant who still occupied the premises and operated their business therefrom.

Regarding the negligence causes of action, defendant argued that the wall separating Trummer’s and Hawksmoor’s leased spaces had been constructed prior to Trummer leasing the space and that Article 12 Section 12.01 of the lease expressly provided that Trummer leased the space “as is.” Thus, any claim that the wall was negligently constructed, that defendant negligently oversaw the construction of the wall, or that water damage was caused by the construction of the wall was expressly waived by Trummer under the lease. Further, defendant argued that under New York law, a landlord owes no duty to maintain or repair fixtures under the exclusive control of a tenant.

The Court dismissed plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety finding that the claims for breach of contract were dictated by the terms of the contract and plaintiff’s causes of action were addressed therein to defendant’s favor. The Court further found that defendant established that the plaintiff had no cause of action (i.e., that a well-pleaded cognizable claim is flatly rejected by the documentary evidence), and dismissal was appropriate.