327 Realty, LLC v. Nextel of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

327 Realty, LLC v. Nextel of New York, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 4076, 150 A.D.3d 581, 55 N.Y.S.3d 202

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

DecidedMay 23, 2017

Docket4068 21380/14

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4076 (327 Realty, LLC v. Nextel of New York, 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

327 Realty, LLC v. Nextel of New York, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 4076, 150 A.D.3d 581, 55 N.Y.S.3d 202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered February 10, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*582 Under principles of contract interpretation, where an example of a condition is given, that example defines the type of event that will fulfill that condition (see Lend Lease [US] Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 136 AD3d 52, 57 [1st Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 675 [2017]). Hence, where the lease here gave “signal interference” as an example of a “technological” issue that would justify termination of the lease, the lease could only be terminated under that provision by a physical or similar condition that would render the premises unsuited for use as a cell tower. To the extent there may be an ambiguity, it is properly construed against the drafter, defendant (see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 97 AD3d 87, 93 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 430 [2013] [noting that contra proferentum is doctrine of last resort that construes an ambiguity against the drafter]).

The leases in the cases relied upon by defendant have terms that are similar, but in material respects different from those here, and thus are unpersuasive (see e.g. Public Storage v Sprint Corp., 2015 WL 1057923, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 30204 [CD Cal, Mar. 9, 2015, No. CV 14-2594-GW (PLAx)], appeal dismissed 9th Cir, Nos. 15-55575, 15-55646 Mar. 30, 2016 [same termination provision, however, liquidated damages included for certain categories of termination]).

Defendant’s reason for termination of the lease did not fit within the type of “technological” issues allowed in the lease, but rather was economic, and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered February 10, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*582 Under principles of contract interpretation, where an example of a condition is given, that example defines the type of event that will fulfill that condition (see Lend Lease [US] Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 136 AD3d 52, 57 [1st Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 675 [2017]). Hence, where the lease here gave “signal interference” as an example of a “technological” issue that would justify termination of the lease, the lease could only be terminated under that provision by a physical or similar condition that would render the premises unsuited for use as a cell tower. To the extent there may be an ambiguity, it is properly construed against the drafter, defendant (see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 97 AD3d 87, 93 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 430 [2013] [noting that contra proferentum is doctrine of last resort that construes an ambiguity against the drafter]).

The leases in the cases relied upon by defendant have terms that are similar, but in material respects different from those here, and thus are unpersuasive (see e.g. Public Storage v Sprint Corp., 2015 WL 1057923, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 30204 [CD Cal, Mar. 9, 2015, No. CV 14-2594-GW (PLAx)], appeal dismissed 9th Cir, Nos. 15-55575, 15-55646 Mar. 30, 2016 [same termination provision, however, liquidated damages included for certain categories of termination]).

Defendant’s reason for termination of the lease did not fit within the type of “technological” issues allowed in the lease, but rather was economic, and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4076, 150 A.D.3d 581, 55 N.Y.S.3d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/327-realty-llc-v-nextel-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack