World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison Co.

47 A.D.3d 547, 849 N.Y.S.2d 557

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 547 (World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison 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

World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison Co., 47 A.D.3d 547, 849 N.Y.S.2d 557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 18, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of rent arrears, and granted plaintiff tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment in its favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The lease between the parties provides that possession of the premises should be given to the tenant upon lease signing, but no later than May 1, 2000, and that rent should commence three months after lease signing, but no later than August 1, 2000. However, lease signing and possession did not occur by May 1, 2000. In these circumstances, the court correctly found that the lease clause providing for three months rent-free is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation and that therefore the lease is ambiguous (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 [1986]).

Reading the disputed provision as a whole (see Williams Press v State of New York, 37 NY2d 434, 440 [1975]), the court correctly interpreted it as an expression of the parties’ intent to provide for a three-month rent concession. The court also properly considered the term sheet of the lease and defendant’s failure to bill or sue plaintiff for the rent for the months at issue and found that they supported this interpretation (see Korff v Corbett, 18 AD3d 248, 251 [2005]; Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v Applied Sys. Dev. Corp., 121 AD2d 956, 960 [1986]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 18, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of rent arrears, and granted plaintiff tenant’s cross motion for summary judgment in its favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The lease between the parties provides that possession of the premises should be given to the tenant upon lease signing, but no later than May 1, 2000, and that rent should commence three months after lease signing, but no later than August 1, 2000. However, lease signing and possession did not occur by May 1, 2000. In these circumstances, the court correctly found that the lease clause providing for three months rent-free is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation and that therefore the lease is ambiguous (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 [1986]).

Reading the disputed provision as a whole (see Williams Press v State of New York, 37 NY2d 434, 440 [1975]), the court correctly interpreted it as an expression of the parties’ intent to provide for a three-month rent concession. The court also properly considered the term sheet of the lease and defendant’s failure to bill or sue plaintiff for the rent for the months at issue and found that they supported this interpretation (see Korff v Corbett, 18 AD3d 248, 251 [2005]; Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v Applied Sys. Dev. Corp., 121 AD2d 956, 960 [1986]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 547, 849 N.Y.S.2d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/world-monuments-fund-inc-v-ninety-five-madison-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack