Anavriti Restaurant Corp. v. 757 Third Avenue, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anavriti Restaurant Corp. v. 757 Third Avenue, L. L. C.

272 A.D.2d 208, 708 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5634

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

DecidedMay 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 208 (Anavriti Restaurant Corp. v. 757 Third Avenue, L. L. C.) 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

Anavriti Restaurant Corp. v. 757 Third Avenue, L. L. C., 272 A.D.2d 208, 708 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for a declaration as to the meaning of the lea.se, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is not entitled to the proceeds of the sale of plaintiffs business under the terms of the subject lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that the subject lease was not ambiguous (see, Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566-567), and that, pursuant to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, defendant, upon the sale of the premises, was only entitled to the rent increases set forth in lease paragraph 12 (R).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for a declaration as to the meaning of the lea.se, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is not entitled to the proceeds of the sale of plaintiffs business under the terms of the subject lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that the subject lease was not ambiguous (see, Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566-567), and that, pursuant to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, defendant, upon the sale of the premises, was only entitled to the rent increases set forth in lease paragraph 12 (R).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 208, 708 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anavriti-restaurant-corp-v-757-third-avenue-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack