B & Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Gallagher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B & Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Gallagher

45 A.D.3d 307, 844 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 307 (B & Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Gallagher) 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

B & Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Gallagher, 45 A.D.3d 307, 844 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered November 30, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint wherein plaintiff claimed that it did not violate its lease with defendants based on a deficiency in its monthly rent payments. The monthly rent charged by defendants was calculated pursuant to the language of the commercial lease setting forth the formula for computing the cost of living rent increase, which was in clear and unambiguous terms (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered November 30, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint wherein plaintiff claimed that it did not violate its lease with defendants based on a deficiency in its monthly rent payments. The monthly rent charged by defendants was calculated pursuant to the language of the commercial lease setting forth the formula for computing the cost of living rent increase, which was in clear and unambiguous terms (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 307, 844 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-z-auto-enterprises-llc-v-gallagher-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack