While the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that Schwartz's interpretation of the language (as not requiring him to state a reason for the contract's cancellation) was reasonable, the clause could also be read otherwise. Since the disputed language appeared along with the right of inspection, it was also reasonable to interpret that pairing as requiring Schwartz to provide a reason that was related to the premises' inspection.
Ultimately, however, in view of the conflicting interpretations, the appellate court was of the opinion that a trial was warranted.
Got a problem interpreting your lease or other agreement?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: Schwartz v. Cilmi & Associates