Opinion
June 26, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.).
The court properly held the use of the word "any" in the Early Termination Clause, section 28.01 of the subject lease, to be clear and unambiguous, and thus the Development Parcel requirement was met by inclusion of parcels 100 feet from the premises fronting First Avenue, and properly denied the use of parol evidence.
However, while the court correctly disposed of the action in landlord's favor, rather than granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the court should have declared the rights of the parties. Thus, the order and judgment are modified to reinstate the complaint and grant judgment in favor of defendants, declaring the notice of early termination to be valid ( see, Carroll v. Eno, 237 A.D.2d 102).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.