From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bethpage Theatre Co., Inc. v. Shekel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1987
133 A.D.2d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

August 3, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the defendant Shekel's motion which was for summary judgment on his first cross claim is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial in accordance herewith.

Article 29 of the lease is restrictive and prohibits the use of the premises for purposes other than a theatre during the hours in which the premises are used for public entertainment. It was undisputed that Turnpike, the subtenant under the lease, was using the premises as a video rental store during these hours. As the rental of videotapes is not incidental to the use of the premises as a movie theatre, the court properly found that Turnpike was in violation of article 29 of the lease (see, Dennis Jimmy's Food Corp. v. Milton Co., 99 A.D.2d 477, affd 62 N.Y.2d 613).

We are in agreement with the court that Shekel did not waive his objection to the use of the premises for the sale of videotapes during performance hours by accepting rent, as the lease contained a clear and unambiguous "no waiver" clause which he has a right to enforce (see, Jefpaul Garage Corp. v Presbyterian Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 442; Dennis Jimmy's Food Corp. v Milton Co., supra). However, issues of fact exist as to whether Shekel should be equitably estopped from asserting his rights under article 29 of the lease (see, Rose v. Spa Realty Assocs., 42 N.Y.2d 338). It is alleged by Turnpike that it expended large sums of money on its video rental business with Shekel's knowledge and in reliance upon acts by Shekel indicating that the rental during performance hours was a permissible use under the lease. These facts if proven could lead to the finding of estoppel, and, thus, a trial is required on this issue. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bethpage Theatre Co., Inc. v. Shekel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1987
133 A.D.2d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Bethpage Theatre Co., Inc. v. Shekel

Case Details

Full title:BETHPAGE THEATRE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH SHEKEL, Respondent, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 3, 1987

Citations

133 A.D.2d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Priolo v. St. Mary's Home

However, merely failing to exercise a right does not give rise to estoppel. Plaintiffs must show that it…

Optima Media Grp. v. Bloomberg L.P.

To hold otherwise here would punish Bloomberg for being flexible and to deprive Bloomberg of its "right to…