From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cellular Tel. Co. v. 210 E. 86th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 4, 2005
14 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

In Cellular Telephone Co. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp. (14 AD3d 305, 787 NYS2d 284, [1st Dept 2005]) the court held that Tenant's exercise of a renewal option in its lease was valid, under principles of equity, even though Tenant inadvertently failed to pay nominal cost-of-living increase, since the gravity of the loss was out of proportion to the gravity of the breach.

Summary of this case from 224 SEVENTH ST. ASSOC., LLC v. AMP MGT., INC.

Opinion

4402

January 4, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 20, 2003, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, declaring plaintiff's exercise of the renewal option in the lease valid and effective, and directing defendant to extend the term of the lease for a second five-year term commencing January 1, 2003, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Ellerin, Nardelli and Marlow, JJ.


Since the gravity of the loss was out of proportion to the gravity of the breach, the motion court properly allowed equity to intervene under the circumstances presented ( see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 NY2d 392; Restoration Realty Corp. v. Robero, 87 AD2d 301, affd 58 NY2d 1089). Plaintiff paid rent for each of the four months in question, inadvertently failing to pay only the nominal cost-of-living increase, and invested substantial funds to improve the premises in reliance on its right to exercise the option. Moreover, the premises have been one of plaintiff's top producing retail locations, and defendant failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from the breach.


Summaries of

Cellular Tel. Co. v. 210 E. 86th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 4, 2005
14 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

In Cellular Telephone Co. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp. (14 AD3d 305, 787 NYS2d 284, [1st Dept 2005]) the court held that Tenant's exercise of a renewal option in its lease was valid, under principles of equity, even though Tenant inadvertently failed to pay nominal cost-of-living increase, since the gravity of the loss was out of proportion to the gravity of the breach.

Summary of this case from 224 SEVENTH ST. ASSOC., LLC v. AMP MGT., INC.
Case details for

Cellular Tel. Co. v. 210 E. 86th Street Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, Also Known as ATT WIRELESS, Respondent, v. 210…

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 284

Citing Cases

Skek Associates v. Benenson

33, which represented the reimbursement for rent and other real property-related expenses. Similarly, the…

Madangsui, Inc. v. Crystal Props. LLP

Thus, no "prejudice resulted from the breach" of the notice provisions in the lease. See 135 E. 57th St., at…