Capital Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

S.D. New York

Capital Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

302 B.R. 791, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10310

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 18, 2003

DocketBankruptcy Nos. 01-42217(REG) to 01-4222(REG); 03 Civ. 2308(GEL)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 302 B.R. 791 (Capital Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capital Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.), 302 B.R. 791, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10310 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

LYNCH, District Judge.

The judgment is affirmed on the thorough and scholarly opinion of the Bankruptcy Court, 288 B.R. 339, 339-51 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003). Appellant does not dispute that under Virginia law, the question is how a reasonable landlord would have understood the tenant’s intent. As the Bankruptcy Court rightly held, on the record of this ease no reasonable factfinder could conclude that any reasonable landlord would have taken the letter extending the term of the lease as anything other than the unequivocal expression of the actual tenant’s intent to renew the lease. Therefore, this Court need not reach the Bankruptcy Court’s alternative grounds of decision, set forth in Parts III and IV of its decision, 288 B.R. at 351-56.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment affirming the judgment of [792]*792the Bankruptcy Court, and to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

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

OPINION AND ORDER

LYNCH, District Judge.

The judgment is affirmed on the thorough and scholarly opinion of the Bankruptcy Court, 288 B.R. 339, 339-51 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003). Appellant does not dispute that under Virginia law, the question is how a reasonable landlord would have understood the tenant’s intent. As the Bankruptcy Court rightly held, on the record of this ease no reasonable factfinder could conclude that any reasonable landlord would have taken the letter extending the term of the lease as anything other than the unequivocal expression of the actual tenant’s intent to renew the lease. Therefore, this Court need not reach the Bankruptcy Court’s alternative grounds of decision, set forth in Parts III and IV of its decision, 288 B.R. at 351-56.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment affirming the judgment of [792]*792the Bankruptcy Court, and to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 B.R. 791, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-commercial-properties-inc-v-ames-department-stores-inc-in-re-nysd-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack