Bermont Operating Corp. v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Bermont Operating Corp. v. City of New York

458 N.E.2d 1252, 60 N.Y.2d 901, 470 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3552

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 N.E.2d 1252 (Bermont Operating Corp. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bermont Operating Corp. v. City of New York, 458 N.E.2d 1252, 60 N.Y.2d 901, 470 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3552 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division properly found that the parties had manifested their assent to a renewal lease with a term commencing on March 3, 1979. Plaintiff, having executed and returned four copies of a Board of Estimate resolution which expressly recited that commencement date and which had been transmitted with a letter advising that signing the resolution would constitute the lease renewal [904]*904agreement, expressed its intent by its actions. When this execution of the agreement is viewed in combination with plaintiff’s acceptance of the reduced rental amount provided under the renewal lease, it becomes apparent that there was mutual assent to a March 3, 1979 commencement provision. Plaintiff’s letter of September 17, 1979 expressing its understanding of the commencement time could thus be disregarded.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division properly found that the parties had manifested their assent to a renewal lease with a term commencing on March 3, 1979. Plaintiff, having executed and returned four copies of a Board of Estimate resolution which expressly recited that commencement date and which had been transmitted with a letter advising that signing the resolution would constitute the lease renewal [904]*904agreement, expressed its intent by its actions. When this execution of the agreement is viewed in combination with plaintiff’s acceptance of the reduced rental amount provided under the renewal lease, it becomes apparent that there was mutual assent to a March 3, 1979 commencement provision. Plaintiff’s letter of September 17, 1979 expressing its understanding of the commencement time could thus be disregarded.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 N.E.2d 1252, 60 N.Y.2d 901, 470 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bermont-operating-corp-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack