Opinion
May 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).
The IAS Court correctly held that the parties' lease was unambiguous in calling for an appraisal of fair rental value upon renewal, and properly rejected defendants' resort to extrinsic evidence for purposes of showing that arbitration was intended (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162-163). The pertinent lease provision, which refers throughout only to "appraisers", never to "arbitrators", was clearly intended to resolve a typical valuation dispute ( see, e.g., Brown v. Estate of Rosenstock, 161 A.D.2d 221; Rice v. Ritz Assocs., 88 A.D.2d 513, affd 58 N.Y.2d 923), and we do not think ambiguity is introduced by reason of the fact that the appraisers could be experts in the field of nursing homes as well as real estate; that the renewal rent was to be determined upon the basis of the fair rental rate of nursing homes of comparable size in the same geographic area, rather than highest or best use or some capitalization formula, which, according to defendants, are the methods traditionally used by appraisers; that the appraisers were to "determine", rather than "appraise", fair rental rate after taking an oath to do so fairly and impartially; or that, in the event appointment of a third appraiser became necessary to break a deadlock, the appraisers were to render their decision in writing ( cf., Matter of Penn Cent. Corp. [Consolidated Rail Corp.], 56 N.Y.2d 120, affg on other grounds 82 A.D.2d 208).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.