▶ Video explainer coming soon
The court agreed with Kohl's. It found that the tenant's complaint did not claim any unlawful means were used during the eviction. The eviction happened through a court judgment. That judgment was later reversed, but reversal alone doesn't mean the original eviction was forcible or unlawful under the statute. Because the complaint didn't allege the specific unlawful conduct RPAPL 853 requires, the court dismissed this claim against Kohl's. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.
5 Star Holdings leased a 13,000-square-foot property from Kohl's Department Stores. Kohl's said the tenant failed to pay rent and filed an eviction case in court. In June 2018, a judgment allowed the eviction. The tenant was removed from the property in December 2018. But in August 2019, a higher court reversed that judgment. It sent the case back for a final ruling in the tenant's favor. The tenant then sued Kohl's, claiming the eviction was wrongful under a New York law called RPAPL 853. This law lets tenants collect triple damages if they were forced out by unlawful means.
The question was simple. Did the tenant's complaint show that Kohl's used 'unlawful means' to remove them? Under RPAPL 853, just being wrong later isn't enough. The tenant must show force, unlawful methods, or threats were used during the eviction itself. Kohl's asked the court to dismiss this claim before trial, arguing the complaint didn't meet that legal standard.
This case shows that winning a later appeal doesn't automatically mean a tenant can collect extra damages for wrongful eviction. To use RPAPL 853, a complaint must describe real unlawful conduct, like force or threats, not just an eviction that turned out to be legally incorrect. This distinction matters for landlords and tenants in future disputes.
Talk to a licensed landlord tenant lawyer in New York.