A New York commercial lease typically contains a clause permitting the landlord to issue a notice to cure demanding that the tenant fix or cease an alleged non-monetary default (for example, using the premises in a manner that is allegedly prohibited by the lease or without proper governmental permits) within a certain period of time under the threat of forfeiting its leasehold interest. If the tenant fails to cure its alleged default or obtain an injunction extending the cure period, the tenant faces the unpleasant prospect of defending its (oftentimes valuable) leasehold interest in a summary eviction proceeding. In many instances, landlords issue default notices in bad faith as an excuse to evict tenants that are not actually in default. In other instances, it might not be feasible to cure a default within the cure period (typically 20 or 30 days) provided by a lease. Curing an alleged default may require more than 30 days, particularly if curing involves construction work to the leased premises or getting approvals from governmental agencies, such as the NYC Department of Buildings.
A commercial tenant that is served with a notice of default may minimize the threat to its leasehold by filing an emergent order to show cause in the Supreme Court requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction extending the cure period. This type of motion is known as an application for Yellowstone relief. It gets its name from the oft-cited decision, First Natl. Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 N.Y. 630 (1968). A commercial tenant applying for Yellowstone relief must show that it: (i) holds a commercial lease; (ii) received a cure notice from its landlord threatening it with termination; (iii) is willing and able to cure an alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises; and (iv) is seeking Yellowstone relief prior to the expiration of the cure period provided by the lease.
The experienced commercial litigators at Rapaport Law Firm have two decades of experience obtaining Yellowstone injunctions for commercial tenants.
Recent Authority: 2024–2025 Decisions
Updated February 2025. New York courts continue to refine the principles governing Yellowstone injunctions—the mechanism that allows a commercial tenant to preserve its lease while a dispute with the landlord is litigated.
— Wharton v. 388 Broadway Owners LLC, 237 A.D.3d 72 (1st Dep’t 2025)
In Wharton, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the denial of Yellowstone relief, holding the timely application should have been granted. The court emphasized that a Yellowstone motion need not demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits. What matters is timeliness and the tenant’s readiness and ability to cure—which, in that case, required proof that the tenants could pay rent arrears.
Similarly, in SiteOne Landscape Supply, LLC v. Narrow Way Realty Ltd., 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 3223 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 2024), Yellowstone relief issued where the landlord’s notice to cure speculated that the tenant “possibly” failed to maintain insurance. The court found that ambiguity fatal and reaffirmed that forfeitures are disfavored in New York.
These decisions underscore two practical lessons for Manhattan commercial tenants and landlords: (1) act before the cure period expires, and (2) show concrete ability to cure. When those elements are met, courts commonly grant Yellowstone relief.