New York Community Bank v. Snug Harbor Square Venture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Community Bank v. Snug Harbor Square Venture

299 A.D.2d 329, 749 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 329 (New York Community Bank v. Snug Harbor Square Venture) 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

New York Community Bank v. Snug Harbor Square Venture, 299 A.D.2d 329, 749 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, in effect, that the plaintiff effectively exercised its option to renew a lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff did not effectively exercise its option to renew its lease.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must resolve all factual issues as a matter of law, and [330]*330conclusively dispose of the plaintiffs claim (see Teitler v Pollack & Sons, 288 AD2d 302; Kalivia Food Corp. v Hunts Point Coop. Mkt., 244 AD2d 460). The defendant proffered documentary evidence, in the form of the lease itself and a letter dated August 12, 2001, which flatly contradicted the allegations in the complaint and warranted its dismissal.

Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record shows that the lease is not ambiguous on the issue of the expiration date (see V.A.T. Collision Corp. v 1783 84th St. Realty Corp., 87 AD2d 839).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff did not effectively exercise its option to renew its lease (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901). Feuerstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, in effect, that the plaintiff effectively exercised its option to renew a lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff did not effectively exercise its option to renew its lease.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must resolve all factual issues as a matter of law, and [330]*330conclusively dispose of the plaintiffs claim (see Teitler v Pollack & Sons, 288 AD2d 302; Kalivia Food Corp. v Hunts Point Coop. Mkt., 244 AD2d 460). The defendant proffered documentary evidence, in the form of the lease itself and a letter dated August 12, 2001, which flatly contradicted the allegations in the complaint and warranted its dismissal.

Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record shows that the lease is not ambiguous on the issue of the expiration date (see V.A.T. Collision Corp. v 1783 84th St. Realty Corp., 87 AD2d 839).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff did not effectively exercise its option to renew its lease (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901). Feuerstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 329, 749 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-community-bank-v-snug-harbor-square-venture-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack