From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NOYES CO v. STANDARD INDS

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 11, 1976
85 Misc. 2d 853 (N.Y. App. Term 1976)

Opinion

February 11, 1976

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, ARTHUR E. BLYN, J.

Burns Jacoby (Guy R. Fairstein and Stephen DiLinett of counsel), for appellant.

Goldstein, Shames Hyde (Edwin L. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.


By the terms of the renewal lease executed by the parties, if the tenant was in default in the payment of rent pursuant to the provisions of their expiring lease, the landlord was empowered "to add the amount of such arrearages to any monthly installment of rent payable hereunder and the same shall be payable to landlord as additional rent". In view of this clause in the subsequent lease, as amplified by paragraph 35 thereof, it is beyond contradiction that the indebtedness for escalations in real estate taxes and the cost of living, expressly designated as additional rent under the original lease, retained its character as additional rent over the term described by the successor lease. Therefore, these arrears were an appropriate subject of recovery in this summary proceeding (CCA, § 204; Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 741, subd 5).

Order, entered November 6, 1975, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur: DUDLEY, J.P., HUGHES and RICCOBONO, JJ.


Summaries of

NOYES CO v. STANDARD INDS

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 11, 1976
85 Misc. 2d 853 (N.Y. App. Term 1976)
Case details for

NOYES CO v. STANDARD INDS

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES F. NOYES COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. STANDARD INDUSTRIES, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 11, 1976

Citations

85 Misc. 2d 853 (N.Y. App. Term 1976)
381 N.Y.S.2d 185

Citing Cases

London Terrace v. Stevens

It is deceptive and misleading both as to the amount the tenant must pay to avoid eviction, and as to…

Clemons Mgt. v. Quick Copies

It has long been the law that such a provision is valid (see, 379 Madison Ave. v Stuyvesant Co., 242 App.…