TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc.

Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 520 (1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 13, 1998
Citations
252 A.D.2d 520675 N.Y.S.2d 3651998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In an ac *521 tion for a judgment declaring the rights and liabilities of the parties under a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated June 18, 1997, as denied its motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The parties entered into a 10-year commercial lease which provided for a fixed minimum annual rent and cost of living increases calculated pursuant to a formula. With respect to the cost of living increases, the lease provided that the “[ljandlord agrees that the cost of living increase charged [t]enant * * * shall not exceed 10% per annum in any Lease Year”. The parties dispute the interpretation of that provision.

Interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a matter for the court. In construing a contract, the document must be read as a whole to determine the parties’ purpose and intent, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed so that the parties’ reasonable expectations are realized. Further, a court should not adopt an interpretation which would leave any provision without force and effect (see, Sunrise Mall Assocs. v Import Alley, 211 AD2d 711 ).

The provisions of the lease are unambiguous. In addition, when the lease is read as a whole, it is clear that the cost of living increase for any year could not exceed 10% of that year’s fixed minimum annual rent. Amy other interpretation, including the defendant’s, would not be in accord with the reasonable expectations of the parties. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted and it should be declared that the plaintiff’s calculation of the cost of living increases was proper. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1999: 12005: 12006: 32009: 12010: 12011: 12013: 12014: 12018: 12025: 119992026peak 2006 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA LLC625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  2. Las Palmeras De Ossining Restaurant, Inc. v. Midway Center Corp.107 A.D.3d 854 (2013)
  3. Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno747 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  4. Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc.659 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
  5. Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc. v. Desnick (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.)330 B.R. 689 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005)
  6. Krape v. PDK Labs, Inc.34 A.D.3d 751 (2006)

Most recent

  1. A Real Advantage, Inc. v. Renu Contr. & Restoration, Inc.2025 NY Slip Op 04531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)
  2. Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Claymore Holdings, LLCNo. 05-15-01463-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 20, 2018)
  3. Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno747 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  4. Las Palmeras De Ossining Restaurant, Inc. v. Midway Center Corp.107 A.D.3d 854 (2013)
  5. Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc.659 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
  6. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA LLC625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sunrise Mall Associates v. Import Alley of Sunrise Mall, Inc., 211 A.D.2d 711 (1995) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list