Citation Numbers: 32 A.D.2d 931
Filed Date: 7/7/1969
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2022
In an action by the assignee of a lessee against the lessor to recover damages for alleged breach of the lease and for equitable relief, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from what plaintiff asserts is a portion of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 20, 1968 after a nonjury trial, namely, “ which dismissed * * * [the] complaint.” Appeal dismissed, with costs. The judgment contains no such decretal provision. However, if the judgment contained such a decretal provision, we would affirm it. Paragraph 36 of the lease provided that the lessor would maintain fire insurance in an amount equal to 80% of the insurable amount of the premises “ as same may be determined by an appropriate appraisal by a¡n authorized agency.” In our opinion, the wording of this paragraph fully and clearly expresses the purpose and intention of the parties to the lease in clear and concise terms; hence, the trial court properly excluded any testimony which tended to change or modify the meaning of this clause (see Brainard v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 242 N. Y. 125,133). Parol evidence may not be admitted for the purpose of attempting to vary or contradict an unambiguous lease (Raleigh Assoc. v. Henry, 302 N. Y. 467). It is also our view that the term “ insurable amount ” means neither actual value nor replacement value.