From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antler v. Jamaica 163 Location Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1997
241 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 7, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.

It is well settled that an option contained in a lease which entitles the lessee to purchase the leased premises is a covenant running with the land ( see, Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. Leary, 203 N.Y. 469; Gilbert v. Van Kleeck, 284 App. Div. 611, 617; 2 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant § 20:2, at 114 [3d ed]). In the absence of an express intent to the contrary in the lease, the option to purchase passes to the assignee upon assignment of the lease, and the assignee may enforce the option in the same manner and to the same extent as the original lessee ( see, Gilbert v. Van Kleeck, supra, at 617; 74 N.Y. Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 632, at 608; Fresh Pond Rd. Assocs. v. Estate of Schacht, 120 A.D.2d 561). In the absence of any provision restricting assignment of the lease itself we agree with the Supreme Court that Norman Rappaport, as the assignee, became the "then owner and holder" of the lease pursuant to the option provision in the Lease Modification and Extension Agreement dated October 23, 1988. Accordingly, Rappaport was entitled to purchase the premises.

The appellant's contention that it would be inequitable to permit Rappaport to purchase the premises was not raised in the Supreme Court, and we decline to consider it ( see, Lavine v Lavine, 127 AI)2d 566, 567; Berman v. Hertz Corp., 127 A.D.2d 809, 810; Fresh Pond Rd. Assocs. v. Estate of Schacht, supra). We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions, and find that they are without merit.

The issues raised by the plaintiffs, who did not cross-appeal from the judgment, are not properly before this Court ( see, Ostuni v. East Riv. Tavern, 238 A.D.2d 558; 310 S. Broadway Corp. v Barrier Gas Serv., 224 A.D.2d 409).

O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Antler v. Jamaica 163 Location Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1997
241 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Antler v. Jamaica 163 Location Corp.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN J. ANTLER et al., Respondents, v. JAMAICA 163 LOCATION CORP.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 7, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 13

Citing Cases

Damaro Rest. Group v. Gazette Realty Holdings

Moreover, Gazette was granted a purchase option by YDWDC. A purchase option is both a contractual right, a…

Peters v. Smolian

Here, the right of first refusal confines performance to the persons who originally held it, that is, the…