Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc.

252 A.D.2d 520, 675 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 13, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 520 (Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc.) 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
Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 520, 675 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an ac[521]*521tion for a judgment declaring the rights and liabilities of the parties under a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated June 18, 1997, as denied its motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The parties entered into a 10-year commercial lease which provided for a fixed minimum annual rent and cost of living increases calculated pursuant to a formula. With respect to the cost of living increases, the lease provided that the “[ljandlord agrees that the cost of living increase charged [t]enant * * * shall not exceed 10% per annum in any Lease Year”. The parties dispute the interpretation of that provision.

Interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a matter for the court. In construing a contract, the document must be read as a whole to determine the parties’ purpose and intent, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed so that the parties’ reasonable expectations are realized. Further, a court should not adopt an interpretation which would leave any provision without force and effect (see, Sunrise Mall Assocs. v Import Alley, 211 AD2d 711).

The provisions of the lease are unambiguous. In addition, when the lease is read as a whole, it is clear that the cost of living increase for any year could not exceed 10% of that year’s fixed minimum annual rent. Amy other interpretation, including the defendant’s, would not be in accord with the reasonable expectations of the parties. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted and it should be declared that the plaintiff’s calculation of the cost of living increases was proper. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

A Real Advantage, Inc. v. Renu Contr. & Restoration, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 04531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno
747 F.3d 733 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Las Palmeras De Ossining Restaurant, Inc. v. Midway Center Corp.
107 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc.
659 F.3d 1171 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA LLC
625 F.3d 1359 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
Gutierrez v. State
58 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Queens Best, LLC v. Brazal South Holdings, LLC
35 A.D.3d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Krape v. PDK Labs, Inc.
34 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp.
30 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Desir v. Spano
259 A.D.2d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 520, 675 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snug-harbor-square-venture-v-never-home-laundry-inc-nyappdiv-1998.