Opinion
April 3, 1987
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Where the tenant is given the option of renewing a lease for specified periods upon the same terms and conditions except for the amount of rent and the renewal clause fixes future rents at a "reasonable market value price", the renewal clause is not unenforceable for indefiniteness (Merman v The Surrey, 106 Misc.2d 941, 943; accord, Bechmann v Taylor, 80 Colo. 68, 249 P. 262; Worthington Son Mgt. Corp. v Levy, 204 A.2d 334 [DC]; State Rd. Dept. v Tampa Bay Theatres, 208 So.2d 485 [Fla], cert denied 212 So.2d 869; Edwards v Tobin, 132 Or. 38, 284 P. 562, 68 ALR 152 [1930]; Stone v Martin, 185 Tenn. 369, 206 S.W.2d 388). This is not a case where the parties have agreed to agree upon the rent at some future time (see, Martin Delicatessen v Shumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105). Here, the parties fixed rent based upon an objective standard ascertainable by a variety of methods, including a judicial resolution. The amount of rent is, therefore, reasonably certain, and the renewal agreement is enforceable (Merman v The Surrey, supra; see also, Simpson and Duesenberg, 6 Encyclopedia New York Law, Contracts, §§ 301, 306 [1963]; 1 Corbin, Contracts § 97 [1963]; 1 Williston, Contracts §§ 41, 47 [3d ed 1957]).
Since the tenants exercised their option to renew and there is no requirement that a new lease be executed, the petition in this summary proceeding to evict must be dismissed.