Stanita Realty Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1986 |
| Parties | STANITA REALTY CORP., et al., Appellants, v. HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Moses & Singer, New York City (David B. Eizenman, Ronald L. Cohen, and Steven E. Seidenberg, of counsel), for appellants.
Lasher & Wasserstein, New York City (Howard L. Lasher, Clifford S. Weber, and Michelle E. Goldstein, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover rents allegedly due and damages for wrongful termination of a lease, plaintiffs-landlords appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated October 24, 1984, as denied that branch of their motion as sought partial summary judgment on their claim for damages for wrongful termination of a lease, and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court, entered November 14, 1984, as failed to grant partial summary judgment on that claim.
Appeal from the order dated October 24, 1984, dismissed. That order was superseded by the judgment entered November 14, 1984 (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647).
Judgment entered November 14, 1984 reversed insofar as appealed from, order dated October 24, 1984 vacated insofar as it denied that branch of plaintiffs' motion as sought partial summary judgment on their claim for damages for wrongful termination, said branch of plaintiffs' motion granted, and matter remitted to Special Term for a determination of damages incurred as a result of the wrongful termination of the lease (see, CPLR 3212[c] ).
Plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
In or about March of 1981, defendant-lessee Hughes Aircraft Corporation (hereinafter Hughes) informed plaintiffs-lessors that it was interested in leasing certain premises owned by plaintiffs on which it intended to construct an earth satellite communication facility, more commonly known as an "earth station". Hughes had first offered to purchase the property, but plaintiffs declined. Negotiations thereafter ensued and the parties entered into a 20-year lease which was to commence on May 1, 1981. The relevant provisions of the lease disclose that the parties sought to fashion a chronologically tiered series of termination options pursuant to which Hughes could cancel in the event that certain irremediable obstacles arose, thereby frustrating the purpose of the lease. Under the first option, exercisable only during the first 8 months of the lease, Hughes could terminate without further liability if it established, through documentary proof, that the premises were "unsuitable" for the construction, use, and operation of an earth station. Under the second option, Hughes was entitled to terminate the lease if, without fault on its part, it had lost or never procured the requisite governmental permits and approvals necessary to operate the earth station facility. Notably, "unsuitability" is not a basis supporting termination after the expiration of the first option period.
The third option was similar to the second in that Hughes had to establish that its loss of permits was "without fault". In the event that permits had, without fault, never been procured, Hughes, in order to terminate, could not have operated the premises as an earth station, could not otherwise be in default and had to pay a sum of $50,000 to plaintiffs.
By letter dated February 28, 1983, some 14 months after the first termination option expired, Hughes notified plaintiffs that it was exercising its option to cancel pursuant to the second option premised upon its inability to obtain the requisite governmental approvals and permits. The only documentary proof submitted in support of the notice was a letter addressed to Hughes from its engineers which stated in pertinent part, "[w]e have reviewed our files and find the reason for abandoning the Eisenberg site was because of space limitations". In Hughes' notification letter, the aforesaid document was described as "establishing that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Assing v. United Rubber Supply Co., Inc.
...v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, 487 N.Y.S.2d 105, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 701, 496 N.Y.S.2d 425, 487 N.E.2d 282; cf. Stanita Realty Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 116 A.D.2d 567, 497 N.Y.S.2d 423). If the issue claimed to exist is not genuine, but feigned and therefore there is nothing to be resolved at......
-
SSC Corp. v. Town of Brookhaven
...the court (see, Olson Enterprises v. Agway, Inc., 55 N.Y.2d 659, 661, 446 N.Y.S.2d 928, 431 N.E.2d 289; Stanita Realty Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 116 A.D.2d 567, 497 N.Y.S.2d 423). Here, the contract clearly provides for two different formulae for calculating passthrough adjustments to b......
-
Automotive Management Group, Ltd. v. SRB Management Co., Inc.
...928, 431 N.E.2d 289; Lui v. Park Ridge at Terryville Assn., 196 A.D.2d 579, 580, 601 N.Y.S.2d 496; Stanita Realty Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 116 A.D.2d 567, 497 N.Y.S.2d 423). At bar, the pertinent paragraphs of the stipulation of settlement and order contain no ambiguities. The stipulat......
-
Color Mate, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
...Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 290, 344 N.Y.S.2d 925, 298 N.E.2d 96; Stanita Realty Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 116 A.D.2d 567, 497 N.Y.S.2d 423). The personal guarantee executed by the appellant was unambiguous and unconditional and thus his liability as g......