Opinion
May 18, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2000, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for a declaration as to the meaning of the lease, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is not entitled to the proceeds of the sale of plaintiff's business under the terms of the subject lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Bryan R. Williams, for plaintiff-respondent.
Richard L. Claman, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe, JJ.
The court properly determined that the subject lease was not ambiguous (see, Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 566-567), and that, pursuant to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms, defendant, upon the sale of the premises, was only entitled to the rent increases set forth in lease paragraph 12(R).
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.