1100 Avenue of the Americas Associates v. Bryant Imports, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1100 Avenue of the Americas Associates v. Bryant Imports, Inc.

234 A.D.2d 101, 650 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 101 (1100 Avenue of the Americas Associates v. Bryant Imports, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1100 Avenue of the Americas Associates v. Bryant Imports, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 101, 650 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered June 9,1994, which affirmed an order and judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), both entered on or about May 29, 1992, inter alia, disallowing petitioner-landlord’s claim for additional rent under the real estate tax escalation clause of the subject lease, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the tax escalation clause does not explicitly state whether actual payment of the property tax by the landlord is a prerequisite to the imposition of additional rent on the tenant, we agree with Appellate Term that to require the tenant to pay additional rent where the obligation to pay the tax has [102]*102been shifted from the landlord to a third party would result in the landlord "reap[ing] a windfall not envisioned by the parties’ agreement” (S.B.S Assocs. v Weissman-Heller, Inc., 190 AD2d 529, 530; see, Wendel Found. v Moredall Realty, 282 NY 239).

Petitioner-landlord’s claim that it is respondent-tenant which is realizing a windfall inasmuch as the landlord has accepted a reduced net lease rent in consideration of HBO paying the tax directly is unsupported by any evidence in the record. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ. [See, 161 Misc 2d 582.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered June 9,1994, which affirmed an order and judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), both entered on or about May 29, 1992, inter alia, disallowing petitioner-landlord’s claim for additional rent under the real estate tax escalation clause of the subject lease, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the tax escalation clause does not explicitly state whether actual payment of the property tax by the landlord is a prerequisite to the imposition of additional rent on the tenant, we agree with Appellate Term that to require the tenant to pay additional rent where the obligation to pay the tax has [102]*102been shifted from the landlord to a third party would result in the landlord "reap[ing] a windfall not envisioned by the parties’ agreement” (S.B.S Assocs. v Weissman-Heller, Inc., 190 AD2d 529, 530; see, Wendel Found. v Moredall Realty, 282 NY 239).

Petitioner-landlord’s claim that it is respondent-tenant which is realizing a windfall inasmuch as the landlord has accepted a reduced net lease rent in consideration of HBO paying the tax directly is unsupported by any evidence in the record. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ. [See, 161 Misc 2d 582.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 101, 650 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1100-avenue-of-the-americas-associates-v-bryant-imports-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack