Kay-Bee Toy & Hobby Shops Inc. v. Pyramid Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kay-Bee Toy & Hobby Shops Inc. v. Pyramid Co.

126 A.D.2d 703, 511 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41848

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 703 (Kay-Bee Toy & Hobby Shops Inc. v. Pyramid Co.) 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

Kay-Bee Toy & Hobby Shops Inc. v. Pyramid Co., 126 A.D.2d 703, 511 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment to establish the meaning of a lease and for a judgment for $42,005.38 representing payments made under protest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), dated December 16, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declared that "[tjhere is no provision for any change in the breakpoint [for the computation of the percentage rent] during the renewal terms”, and otherwise dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The renewal clause of the lease is clear and unambiguous. The renewal option specifically limited those areas which were subject to change and provided for a change in the minimum annual rent, but did not provide for any change in the percentage rent. Since the two were not expressly dependent upon each other by the express language of the initial lease, no provision for any change in the percentage rent can be inferred from the documents. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment to establish the meaning of a lease and for a judgment for $42,005.38 representing payments made under protest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), dated December 16, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declared that "[tjhere is no provision for any change in the breakpoint [for the computation of the percentage rent] during the renewal terms”, and otherwise dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The renewal clause of the lease is clear and unambiguous. The renewal option specifically limited those areas which were subject to change and provided for a change in the minimum annual rent, but did not provide for any change in the percentage rent. Since the two were not expressly dependent upon each other by the express language of the initial lease, no provision for any change in the percentage rent can be inferred from the documents. Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 703, 511 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kay-bee-toy-hobby-shops-inc-v-pyramid-co-nyappdiv-1987.