149 MADISON LLC, pet-ap, v. PAUL J. BOSCO, res-res

9306. 149 MADISON LLC, pet-ap, v. PAUL J. BOSCO, res-res — Marcus Rosenberg & Diamond LLP, New York (David Rosenberg of counsel), for ap — Murray Shactman, New York, for res — Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about August 31, 2011, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2010, denying petitioner landlord's motion for leave to renew and/or reargue an order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about May 26, 2010, which, in turn, had denied petitioner landlord's motion for summary judgment on its claim for electrical charges in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and petitioner's motion for summary judgment on the claim for electrical charges granted.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9306. 149 MADISON LLC, pet-ap, v. PAUL J. BOSCO, res-res — Marcus Rosenberg & Diamond LLP, New York (David Rosenberg of counsel), for ap — Murray Shactman, New York, for res — Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about August 31, 2011, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2010, denying petitioner landlord’s motion for leave to renew and/or reargue an order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about May 26, 2010, which, in turn, had denied petitioner landlord’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for electrical charges in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the claim for electrical charges granted.

There is no ambiguity in the relevant clauses of the parties’ lease agreement which, in accordance with their plain meaning, require respondent tenant to pay monthly electric charges in addition to the basic rent (see W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Beginning with Article 44, which provides for a “rent free” month, it is clear that electric charges are separate and apart from basic rent. Indeed, during the “rent free” month respondent was required to pay the electric charges.

149 MADISON LLC, pet-ap, v. PAUL J. BOSCO, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal