Opinion
February 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
The IAS Court properly determined that third-party plaintiff, a remote subtenant, cannot avail itself of any provisions in the prime lease between the third-party defendants, both because of the absence of privity (see, Sims v Darwood Mgt., 147 A.D.2d 373), and the fact that third-party plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary, the landlord having neither undertaken a duty to remote subtenants, nor intending to confer any benefits on remote subtenants (see, Garland v Titan W. Assocs., 147 A.D.2d 304, 309).
We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.