Opinion
November 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied.
Although the meaning of the term "demolish" is not necessarily confined to the complete razing of a building (see, Jack LaLanne Biltmore Health Spa v Builtland Partners, 99 A.D.2d 705, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 777; Friedman v Ontario Holding Corp., 279 App. Div. 23, affd 304 N.Y. 625), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff on this motion for summary judgment did not establish that the completed and proposed building modifications herein constitute the demolition of "more than 50% of the ground floor building area * * * in the shopping center of which the demised premises is a part", as that term is defined in paragraph 6 of the lease agreement. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.