Tsabbar v. Auld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsabbar v. Auld

289 A.D.2d 115, 735 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12264

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 115 (Tsabbar v. Auld) 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

Tsabbar v. Auld, 289 A.D.2d 115, 735 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 25, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject lease required board approval for subleases (see, Tsabbar v Auld, 276 AD2d 442), and, by its terms, could not be orally modified, rendering the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff, pursuant to which subleasing would be permissible without board approval, unenforceable (see, Day Realty Corp. v Lawrence Assocs., 270 AD2d 140, 141). Read in the context of the entire lease, the lease provision requiring board consent for subleases is unambiguous as a matter of law (see, Duggal Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 181 AD2d 472, 473, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is no evidence of partial performance by plaintiff unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement (see, Lebowitz v Mingus, 100 AD2d 816, [116]*116817, appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 675), or of conduct unequivocally referable to a clear and unambiguous promise of the type required for promissory estoppel (see, 99 Realty Co. v Eikenberry, 242 AD2d 215, 216). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 25, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject lease required board approval for subleases (see, Tsabbar v Auld, 276 AD2d 442), and, by its terms, could not be orally modified, rendering the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff, pursuant to which subleasing would be permissible without board approval, unenforceable (see, Day Realty Corp. v Lawrence Assocs., 270 AD2d 140, 141). Read in the context of the entire lease, the lease provision requiring board consent for subleases is unambiguous as a matter of law (see, Duggal Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 181 AD2d 472, 473, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is no evidence of partial performance by plaintiff unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement (see, Lebowitz v Mingus, 100 AD2d 816, [116]*116817, appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 675), or of conduct unequivocally referable to a clear and unambiguous promise of the type required for promissory estoppel (see, 99 Realty Co. v Eikenberry, 242 AD2d 215, 216). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 115, 735 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsabbar-v-auld-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack