When Awe Olunkunle settled a nonpayment case with his landlord, the tenant agreed to relocate from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom apartment and the rent for the "subject premises" would be $215 or 30% of the tenant's income, whichever was higher.
When it came time to move, the two disagreed over of the rent for the smaller unit. The landlord claimed that the term "subject premises" referred to the two-bedroom apartment, while Awe argued that the language applied to the smaller space.
When the New York Civil Court denied Awe's request to "reform" the agreement to comport with his understanding of its terms, he appealed.
While "reformation" is available when a party want to add terms to an agreement that were "inadvertently omitted," or to remove wording that was "inadvertently supplied," the Appellate Term, First Department, thought the tenant was really asking the court to resolve an interpretive ambiguity and that a hearing was needed to determine what the term "subject premises" referenced.
Will Awe be in for a shock?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: 239 E. 115th St. HDFC v. Olunkunle