327 REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. NEXTEL OF NEW YORK, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SPRINT NEXTEL, Defendant-res-res

4068. 327 REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. NEXTEL OF NEW YORK, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SPRINT NEXTEL, Defendant-res-res — Santamarina & Associates, New York (Gil Santamarina of counsel), for appellant-res — Turner & Turner, White Plains (Frederick W. Turner of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered February 10, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's and defendant's respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4068. 327 REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. NEXTEL OF NEW YORK, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SPRINT NEXTEL, Defendant-res-res — Santamarina & Associates, New York (Gil Santamarina of counsel), for appellant-res — Turner & Turner, White Plains (Frederick W. Turner of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered February 10, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Under principles of contract interpretation, where an example of a condition is given, that example defines the type of event that will fulfill that condition (see Lend Lease [U.S.] Constr. LMB Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 136 AD3d 52, 57 [1st Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 675 [2017]). Hence, where the lease here gave “signal interference” as an example of a “technological” issue that would justify termination of the lease, the lease could only be terminated under that provision by a physical or similar condition that would render the premises unsuited for use as a cell tower. To the extent there may be an ambiguity, it is properly construed against the drafter, defendant (see Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP, 97 AD3d 87, 93 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 430 [2013] [noting that contra proferentum is doctrine of last resort that construes an ambiguity against the drafter]).

327 REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. NEXTEL OF NEW YORK, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SPRINT NEXTEL, Defendant-res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal