44 Court Street, LLC v. Edwin Gould Services for Children & Families

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

44 Court Street, LLC v. Edwin Gould Services for Children & Families

62 A.D.3d 502, 878 N.Y.S.2d 617

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

DecidedMay 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.3d 502 (44 Court Street, LLC v. Edwin Gould Services for Children & Families) 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

44 Court Street, LLC v. Edwin Gould Services for Children & Families, 62 A.D.3d 502, 878 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered January 4, 2008, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence at trial amply demonstrated that the parties understood the subject lease clause to refer to the level of funding for the foster care program, not to the level of funding for the agency as a whole (see Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 44 [1999]). Furthermore, the parties’ conduct during the duration of the lease demonstrated their understanding that the payment of rent was governed by the level of funding given to the foster care programs (see id.). The parties had twice before entered into lease modifications following changes to the foster care program.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

[503]*503Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered January 4, 2008, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence at trial amply demonstrated that the parties understood the subject lease clause to refer to the level of funding for the foster care program, not to the level of funding for the agency as a whole (see Federal Ins. Co. v Americas Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 39, 44 [1999]). Furthermore, the parties’ conduct during the duration of the lease demonstrated their understanding that the payment of rent was governed by the level of funding given to the foster care programs (see id.). The parties had twice before entered into lease modifications following changes to the foster care program.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 502, 878 N.Y.S.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/44-court-street-llc-v-edwin-gould-services-for-children-families-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack