From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick Pontiac v. Jotric Land Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 16, 2000

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: GREEN, A. P. J., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover the cost of repairs and improvements it made to property leased from defendant. Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Inasmuch as the lease contains no express covenant by defendant to repair or improve the leased premises, defendant had no obligation to make repairs or improvements or to pay for repairs or improvements made by plaintiff ( see, Witty v. Matthews, 52 N.Y. 512, 514; Bomrad v. Van Curler Trucking Corp., 109 A.D.2d 1067, 1068). Moreover, no such covenant will be implied ( see, Witty v. Matthews, supra, at 515; Potter v. New York, Ontario W. Ry. Co., 233 App. Div. 578, 582, affd 261 N.Y. 489). Thus, the provision in the lease that plaintiff shall, at its "own cost and expense make all repairs and improvements not to exceed $1,000.00 for any one such repair or improvement" does not imply a covenant on defendant's part to make repairs and improvements exceeding $1,000 ( see, Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank v. 108 W. 49th St. Corp., 255 App. Div. 570, 575, affd 280 N.Y. 791; see also, Refrigeration for Science v. Deacon Realty Corp., 70 Misc.2d 500, 507, affd 42 A.D.2d 691). Nor did the voluntary repair of the premises obligate defendant to make further repairs or improvements to the leased premises ( see, Bomrad v. Van Curler Trucking Corp., supra, at 1068; Potter v. New York, Ontario W. Ry. Co., supra, at 583). Finally, plaintiff's contention that reformation of the lease agreement is an appropriate remedy is not properly before us. Plaintiff neither pleaded a cause of action for reformation ( see, Surlak v. Surlak, 95 A.D.2d 371, 381) nor raised that contention at Supreme Court ( see, Zankowski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 204 A.D.2d 1023).


Summaries of

Patrick Pontiac v. Jotric Land Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Patrick Pontiac v. Jotric Land Development

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK PONTIAC NISSAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOTRIC LAND…

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

Date published: Feb 16, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 630

Citing Cases

Ravase v. Patippe

The court denied plaintiff any recovery, dismissed plaintiff's action, and awarded defendant $330 on his…

Peach Parking Corp. v. 346 W. 40th St., LLC

Bier Assoc. v Piraino, 16 AD3d 578 [2nd Dept], lv denied 5 NY3d 707). A written covenant to repair will not…