From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eberz v. 11-44 Associates, L.L.C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 2004
12 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Summary

affirming summary judgment for the defendants and noting, "Although plaintiff lessee claims defendant lessors represented that the actual area of the demised commercial premises was 7,590 square feet, when the premises were, in fact, considerably smaller, it is plain from the lease that the representation in question was not as to the actual or usable area of the premises, but its `rentable' square feet, and the documentary evidence establishes that there is in the commercial real estate industry a clear distinction between `rentable' and `usable' square footage."

Summary of this case from McGINNIS v. CLEMENS DROSTE ZU VISC

Opinion

November 4, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 2, 2003, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Friedman, JJ.


Although plaintiff lessee claims defendant lessors represented that the actual area of the demised commercial premises was 7,590 square feet, when the premises were, in fact, considerably smaller, it is plain from the lease that the representation in question was not as to the actual or usable area of the premises, but its "rentable" square feet, and the documentary evidence establishes that there is in the commercial real estate industry a clear distinction between "rentable" and "usable" square footage. Comprehension of the distinction, which should not have been lost upon plaintiff, particularly since it had every opportunity to ascertain the actual dimensions of the leased space ( see Duane Thomas, LLC v. 62 Thomas Partners, LLC, 300 AD2d 52, lv denied 100 NY2d 513), renders untenable plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation, and dependent causes alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeking as a remedy reformation of the lease ( see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, Inc., 88 NY2d 413, 421; see also K.I.D.E. Assoc. v. Garage Estates Co., 280 AD2d 251).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Eberz v. 11-44 Associates, L.L.C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 2004
12 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

affirming summary judgment for the defendants and noting, "Although plaintiff lessee claims defendant lessors represented that the actual area of the demised commercial premises was 7,590 square feet, when the premises were, in fact, considerably smaller, it is plain from the lease that the representation in question was not as to the actual or usable area of the premises, but its `rentable' square feet, and the documentary evidence establishes that there is in the commercial real estate industry a clear distinction between `rentable' and `usable' square footage."

Summary of this case from McGINNIS v. CLEMENS DROSTE ZU VISC

noting that the distinction between rentable and usable "should not have been lost upon plaintiff, particularly since it had every opportunity to ascertain the actual dimensions of the leased space"

Summary of this case from McGINNIS v. CLEMENS DROSTE ZU VISC
Case details for

Eberz v. 11-44 Associates, L.L.C

Case Details

Full title:MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN EBERZ, P.C., Appellant, v. 11-44 ASSOCIATES…

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
784 N.Y.S.2d 58

Citing Cases

McGINNIS v. CLEMENS DROSTE ZU VISC

Others were likely sophisticated tenants (or were represented by knowledgeable brokers) who knew what…

Wright v. Champion Prop. Mgmt., LLC

The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiff's fraud claim is not viable. In Meiselman, Deniea, Packman &…