Alsaedi v. Ninth Avenue Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alsaedi v. Ninth Avenue Realty

2 A.D.3d 233, 768 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered May 9, 2003, which, inter alia, in this action seeking a declaration that there is a valid lease entitling plaintiff to continued tenancy of the subject commercial premises, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring in defendant’s favor that there is no lease pursuant to which plaintiff may continue to tenant the premises, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to defendant payable by plaintiff.

Assuming that defendant, by forwarding plaintiff a lease extension and modification agreement, offered to extend the term of plaintiffs expiring lease—which contained no renewal option—the offer was effectively withdrawn some three months after it had been made, prior to plaintiffs putative acceptance. Moreover, the agreement, even if timely executed by plaintiff, would not have been binding on defendant because defendant did not execute it and deliver it to plaintiff (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; and see 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc., 46 NY2d 506, 511 [1979]; Jaffe v Gordon, 240 AD2d 232 [1997]).

We modify only to declare in defendant’s favor (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [234] [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered May 9, 2003, which, inter alia, in this action seeking a declaration that there is a valid lease entitling plaintiff to continued tenancy of the subject commercial premises, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring in defendant’s favor that there is no lease pursuant to which plaintiff may continue to tenant the premises, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to defendant payable by plaintiff.

Assuming that defendant, by forwarding plaintiff a lease extension and modification agreement, offered to extend the term of plaintiffs expiring lease—which contained no renewal option—the offer was effectively withdrawn some three months after it had been made, prior to plaintiffs putative acceptance. Moreover, the agreement, even if timely executed by plaintiff, would not have been binding on defendant because defendant did not execute it and deliver it to plaintiff (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; and see 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc., 46 NY2d 506, 511 [1979]; Jaffe v Gordon, 240 AD2d 232 [1997]).

We modify only to declare in defendant’s favor (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [234] [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

Alsaedi v. Ninth Avenue Realty, 2 A.D.3d 233, 768 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 233 (Alsaedi v. Ninth Avenue Realty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related