Aris Industries, Inc. v. 1411 Trizechahn-Swig, LLC
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tenber Associates v. Bloomberg L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- 800 Third Ave. Assoc., LLC v. Roadrunner Capital Partners LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- 800 Third Ave. Assoc., LLC v. Roadrunner Capital Partners LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- International Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Lacher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Adams v. Washington Group, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc. v. Hillman Housing Corp. (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 (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered May 31, 2001, which granted defendant-landlord’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 31, 2001, denying plaintiffs motion for consolidation, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
Where, as here, a lease contains a clause requiring modification of its terms to be in a writing signed by the landlord, oral modification is generally precluded (see, General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]; Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v Jeffrey Lawrence Assoc., 270 AD2d 140, 141; 99 Realty Co. v Eikenberry, 242 AD2d 215). The documentary evidence before the motion court established that despite the exchange of numerous drafts of a proposed partial surrender agreement, the parties ultimately did not reach an agreement, and plaintiff vacated the premises without any agreement having been signed. It is, in addition, clear that plaintiffs alleged partial performance was not unequivocally referable to the claimed oral modification and that the alleged modification, therefore, was not exempt from the requirement there be a writing pursuant to General Obligations Law § 15-301 (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338, 343-344). Plaintiffs estoppel claim is without merit, since, under the circumstances alleged, there could have been no reasonable reliance on the alleged oral promise and no unconscionable injury (see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 91 AD2d 901, affd 59 NY2d 716;
We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.