Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Tsabbar v. Auld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 18, 2001

289 A.D.2d 115; 735 N.Y.S.2d 31; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12264

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Tsabbar v. Booth (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Tsabbar, D.D.S. v. Auld (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc. v. Tsabbar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Richbell Information Services, Inc. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Mendoza v. Rubin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Tsabbar v. Delena (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 25, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject lease required board approval for subleases (see, Tsabbar v Auld, 276 AD2d 442), and, by its terms, could not be orally modified, rendering the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff, pursuant to which subleasing would be permissible without board approval, unenforceable (see, Day Realty Corp. v Lawrence Assocs., 270 AD2d 140, 141). Read in the context of the entire lease, the lease provision requiring board consent for subleases is unambiguous as a matter of law (see, Duggal Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 181 AD2d 472, 473, lv denied 80 NY2d 753). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is no evidence of partial performance by plaintiff unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement (see, Lebowitz v Mingus, 100 AD2d 816, *116817, appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 675), or of conduct unequivocally referable to a clear and unambiguous promise of the type required for promissory estoppel (see, 99 Realty Co. v Eikenberry, 242 AD2d 215, 216). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.