Snug Harbor Square Venture v. Never Home Laundry, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. NAVINTA LLC (Fed. Cir. 2010)
- Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011)
- Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno (9th Cir. 2014)
- Las Palmeras De Ossining Restaurant, Inc. v. Midway Center Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Las Palmeras De Ossining Restaurant, Inc. v. Midway Center Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Claymore Holdings, LLC (Tex. App. 2018)
- Krape v. PDK Labs, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc. v. Desnick (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois 2005)
- A Real Advantage, Inc. v. Renu Contr. & Restoration, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Gutierrez v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Queens Best, LLC v. Brazal South Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Desir v. Spano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an ac
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.