Opinion
November 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that the clause in question was ambiguous. Accordingly, it was proper to receive the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, who negotiated the terms of the original lease for the original parties in interest, to explain the intended operation of the clause (see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 554; Globe Food Servs. Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 184 A.D.2d 278).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Kassal, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.