Opinion
2011-10-4
COLE, SCHOTZ, MEISEL, FORMAN & LEONARD, P.A., Plaintiff–Respondent,v.STANTON CRENSHAW COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants–Appellants,Crenshaw Communications, et al., Defendants.
The Abramson Law Group, PLLC, New York (Robert F. Martin of counsel), for appellants.Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., New York (Jed M. Weiss of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 21, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, Stanton Public Relations & Marketing and Alexander H. Stanton's (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second and third causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The stipulation on which defendants rely does not clearly and unambiguously manifest an intent on plaintiff's part to release defendants from future rent obligations under the lease ( see Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 968, 525 N.Y.S.2d 793, 520 N.E.2d 512 [1988]; NAB Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 388, 714 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2000] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.