Galapo v. Feinberg

• Decision Date: 30 November 1999
• Citation: Galapo v. Feinberg, 699 N.Y.S.2d 344, 266 AD2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
• Parties: ALBERT GALAPO, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ABRAHAM FEINBERG et al., Defendants, 86 ORCHARD STREET CO., Respondent, and MAJESTIC HOSIERY & SPORTSWEAR, INC., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

266 A.D.2d 150

699 N.Y.S.2d 344

ALBERT GALAPO, Appellant,

v.ABRAHAM FEINBERG et al., Defendants, 86 ORCHARD STREET CO., Respondent, and MAJESTIC HOSIERY & SPORTSWEAR, INC., Appellant.

Decided November 30, 1999.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Plaintiff's former lease accorded him a right to purchase the premises only on condition that he had not defaulted on any of the lease terms "whether or not notice of default shall have been given". Thus, although defendant landlord never declared plaintiff to be in default and continued to accept rent from him, albeit in a unilaterally reduced amount, the nonpayment of the prescribed rent sufficed as a ground to deny plaintiff the option to purchase the property. In any event, an option to purchase contained in a lease is, unless expressly reaffirmed in a subsequent lease or extension thereof, only valid during the term of the original lease (see, Gulf Oil Corp. v Buram Realty Co., 11 NY2d 223, 226; Matter of Lazarus v Flournoy, 28 AD2d 685), which, in this case, had expired. Plaintiff, therefore, no longer had any right to purchase at the time that he purported to exercise the option, and the fact that defendant's attorney mistakenly sent him a letter reminding plaintiff of the option contained in the original lease did not serve to revive the option. Moreover, even if counsel's communication had the effect of...