622 Building Co. v. Eastman Software, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

622 Building Co. v. Eastman Software, Inc.

275 A.D.2d 258, 712 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 258 (622 Building Co. v. Eastman Software, 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

622 Building Co. v. Eastman Software, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 258, 712 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 8, 1999, which, inter alia, denied so much of plaintiff landlord’s motion as sought partial summary judgment on its claim to recover the cost of supplemental air-conditioning as additional rent under its lease with defendant tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that the pertinent lease provisions are ambiguous as to whether they apply to the air conditioning system that is dedicated to one room in the leased premises and separately controlled by the tenant or only to the building-wide central air conditioning system controlled by the landlord.

In reaching this conclusion, though, we emphasize that the pertinent lease clauses otherwise are clear, in that the landlord must be compensated for overtime air-conditioning provided throughout the premises by the landlord, at the agreed-upon rate. However, applying that particular, and unremarkable, language to this unique situation leads to a remarkable result, raising factual issues regarding the intent of the parties. Therein, we find the ambiguity that precludes summary disposition in favor of the landlord. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 8, 1999, which, inter alia, denied so much of plaintiff landlord’s motion as sought partial summary judgment on its claim to recover the cost of supplemental air-conditioning as additional rent under its lease with defendant tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that the pertinent lease provisions are ambiguous as to whether they apply to the air conditioning system that is dedicated to one room in the leased premises and separately controlled by the tenant or only to the building-wide central air conditioning system controlled by the landlord.

In reaching this conclusion, though, we emphasize that the pertinent lease clauses otherwise are clear, in that the landlord must be compensated for overtime air-conditioning provided throughout the premises by the landlord, at the agreed-upon rate. However, applying that particular, and unremarkable, language to this unique situation leads to a remarkable result, raising factual issues regarding the intent of the parties. Therein, we find the ambiguity that precludes summary disposition in favor of the landlord. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 258, 712 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/622-building-co-v-eastman-software-inc-nyappdiv-2000.