Citation Numbers: 120 Misc. 2d 486
Filed Date: 5/24/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order dated July 9, 1982, affirmed, with $10 costs.
The parties are assignee landlord and tenant under a commercial lease which was to expire July 31,1986. Landlord brought holdover proceedings to obtain possession, exercising its right to unilaterally terminate the lease in order to proceed with demolition. In settlement of the summary proceeding, tenant consented to the entry of a final judgment in landlord’s favor on December 1, 1981, execution of the warrant to be stayed to January 31, 1982;
In June, 1982, almost six months later, tenant moved for an order restoring it to possession, citing a clause in the lease (par 43:8) which permitted it to reoccupy the premises where landlord had exercised its right to terminate the lease in order to demolish or renovate the building, but had not commenced demolition within 90 days of the tenant’s surrender. The Civil Court correctly denied tenant’s motion to be restored. A review of the stipulation, final judgment entered thereon, and surrender agreement convinces us that the parties had finally terminated their landlord-tenant relationship upon stated terms. These documents did not contemplate a subsequent reoccupation by the tenant at a future date pursuant to paragraph 43:8 or any other provision of a lease which formerly governed the now mutually terminated tenancy; certainly, there was no reservation of rights to that effect. Even assuming that paragraph 43:8 survived the entry of final judgment, we are of the view that tenant should not prevail because, as amplified in the opinion below, tenant did not timely move for restoration in accordance with that clause’s terms.
Dudley, P. J., Sullivan and Sandifer, JJ., concur.