ALL THIS OVER 3 MONTHS?
In World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison Co., Ninety-Five Madison Co. (“NFM”) entered into a lease which provided that "possession of the premises should be given to [World Monuments] upon lease signing, but no later than May 1, 2000, and that rent should commence three months after lease signing, but no later than August 1, 2000.”
Of course, the lease was not signed, nor was possession given to World Monuments, by May 1, 2000.
When NFM sought to recover the rent arrears, the New York County Supreme Court sided with World Monuments and concluded that the tenant was entitled to a three-month credit.
On appeal, the AD1 examined the lease and agreed, noting that NFM had neither billed nor sued World Monuments for the months at issue; inaction which further supported the lower court’s finding that World Monuments was entitled to the concession.
How monumental was that?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use this link: World Monuments Fund, Inc. v. Ninety-Five Madison Co.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1838
Comments
The appellate courts do not do us any favors when they write their decisions so cryptically. It's like they're trying to hide something.
These parties didn't intend for the credit to go beyond August. Tenant would get May, June and July for free.
Here the Landlord didn't deliver the premises to the tenant on time. So, for every month of delay in delivering the space, the tenant's "three months free" was extended (likely beyond the August 1 date).
Was that in the agreement? Probably not.
So here is an example of our courts rewriting contracts. Something they're not supposed to do.
Posted by: Martin | March 10, 2008 11:32 AM