Opinion
July 7, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
It appears that the use to which the plaintiff is putting the demised premises comports with the uses permitted under the terms of the lease. The trial court was thus correct in enjoining the landlord from interfering with that use. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the tenant's business was maintained on the premises for several years without objection by the landlord, which objection could well have been asserted at the time that the tenant, at its own expense, completely renovated the premises for its present use.
Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.