Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman

New York Court of Appeals

Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman

814 N.E.2d 429, 2 N.Y.3d 810, 781 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2 N.Y. 810, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1317

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 814 N.E.2d 429 (Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman) 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

Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman, 814 N.E.2d 429, 2 N.Y.3d 810, 781 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2 N.Y. 810, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1317 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*767 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

As we recently stated in R/S Assoc. v New York Job Dev. Auth. (98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]), “when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (see also Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 198 [2001], quoting W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Nothing in the parties’ agreement limits the commission to the initial lease period. On the contrary, an option to renew a lease for three five-year periods, as provided for in the subject lease, would fall within the broad category of “a lease, rental arrangement or other occupancy,” unambiguously requiring payment of 10% of the rent over the period of occupancy.

Given that plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is not empowered to grant it summary relief (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-111 [1984]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

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

*767 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

As we recently stated in R/S Assoc. v New York Job Dev. Auth. (98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]), “when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (see also Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 198 [2001], quoting W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Nothing in the parties’ agreement limits the commission to the initial lease period. On the contrary, an option to renew a lease for three five-year periods, as provided for in the subject lease, would fall within the broad category of “a lease, rental arrangement or other occupancy,” unambiguously requiring payment of 10% of the rent over the period of occupancy.

Given that plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is not empowered to grant it summary relief (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-111 [1984]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 N.E.2d 429, 2 N.Y.3d 810, 781 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2 N.Y. 810, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/signature-realty-inc-v-tallman-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack