New York Overnight Partners, L.P., Respondent, v. Joan Gordon, et al.,
Appellants.
88 N.Y.2d 716, 673 N.E.2d 123, 649 N.Y.S.2d 928 (1996).
October 15, 1996
1 No. 183 (1996 NY Int. 185)
Decided October 15, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Jay Goldberg, for appellants.
John G. Hutchinson, for respondent.
CIPARICK, J.:
Respondent, owner of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at 112 Central
Park South, New York City, leases the land underlying the hotel from
appellants, owners of the land. When the parties
deadlocked on the meaning of the lease term "appraised value of the
land" during negotiations for the lease renewal, they agreed to seek a
judicial interpretation of that term to settle their dispute.
Appellants now challenge so much of the Appellate Division order which
held that the appraiser must determine the value of the land as though
vacant, without improvements, and subject to current zoning
regulations. They argue that the court improperly directed the
appraiser to disregard the effect of the hotel on the value of the
land. Because the lease expressly provides that the appraiser value
the land as unimproved, without regard to the existence of the hotel,
we affirm the order of the Appellate Division.
A.
The impasse over the meaning of "appraised value of the
land," a term critical for establishing the rental amount for the
first 15-year renewal term, resulted from respondent s
interpretation that the lease required an appraiser to value the
parcel of land as though vacant and unimproved, whereas appellants
believed that the appraiser should consider the
"benefit" any improvement "imparts" to the land, even if that
improvement constitutes a legally non-conforming use1. The parties
stipulated to resolve their dispute in court. Respondent thus
SNIPPETS:
Jay Goldberg, for appellants.
John G. Hutchinson, for respondent.
Respondent, owner of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at 112 Central Park South, New York City, leases
When the parties deadlocked on the meaning of the lease term "appraised value of the land"
Appellants now challenge so much of the Appellate Division order which held that the
They argue that the court improperly directed the appraiser to disregard the effect of the
The impasse over the meaning of "appraised value of the land," a term critical for
Respondent thus proceeded with this action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a
respondent moved for summary judgment on the complaint and appellants cross moved for summary
Supreme Court denied respondent's motion, granted appellants cross motion and dismissed the
Respondent appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, on the law, granted respondent's
In an effort to avoid the consequences of the legal determination that the land must be
When the language of the lease so dictates, appraisals must take into consideration all
v Wellington Assocs., Inc., 55 Misc 2d 483, aff'd on opn below 28 AD2d 1209, aff'd on opn at
Although there is no question that it is the appraiser who must determine which of the myriad
The precedents firmly establish that in addition to construing disputed terms of a lease in
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed,
Article 1, 1.03 of the lease defines the demised premises as the land acquired by the lessor
|
