Tobin v. Union News Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1963
• Citation: Tobin v. Union News Co., 18 A.D.2d 243, 239 N.Y.S.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
• Parties: Edward J. TOBIN, Appellant, v. The UNION NEWS COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 22

239 N.Y.S.2d 22

18 A.D.2d 243

Edward J. TOBIN, Appellant, v. The UNION NEWS COMPANY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Argued Dec. 6, 1962.

Decided April 4, 1963.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse, Charles E. Cooney, Jr., Syracuse, of counsel, for appellant.

Alderman & Alderman, Syracuse, Saul H. Alderman, Syracuse, of counsel, for respondent.

Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HALPERN and HENRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action by the lessor for damages arising out of non-performance by the lessee of a covenant in a restaurant lease providing for the conversion of a portion of the second floor of the demised premises from living quarters to banquet and restaurant facilities, the issues involve the interpretation of the provision, the scope of the parol evidence rule and proof of damages. Because of misconstruction of the covenant, misapplication of the parol evidence rule, and overemphasis on the need for exactitude in damages there must be a new trial.

The plaintiff-lessor appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint after trial. Defendant's position is that the language of the covenant is too indefinite for enforcement and, accordingly, is not binding and also that appellant has failed to sustain its burden of proof of damages.

Clause 'Twentieth' of the lease provided that the second floor portion of the premises was to be altered by the lessee to banquet and restaurant facilities at the lessee's expense within one year from the date of the lease. Negotiations in the Fall of 1954 culminated in execution of a five-year lease of the premises for an annual rental of $15,000 and 3 1/2% of the annual gross sales in excess of $300,000.

The trial court found that the contract provisions as to the conversion of the living quarters to banquet and restaurant facilities might be variously interpreted. While this is true the obligation to convert is clear and creates a valid obligation on the lessee's part. The specifics of conversion are vague and should have been more definitely provided for in the lease. The trial court found that the terminology 'banquet and restaurant facilities' is not ambiguous and, even if it is, that the parol evidence introduced by plaintiff removed its ambiguity. Then, after accepting the parol evidence as demonstrative of lack of ambiguity, the court rejected the same parol evidence as incompetent to explain and amplify what the parties intended. The purpose for which the evidence was introduced was misconstrued. There was also incongruity in recognizing the evidence as removing any possible ambiguity and later rejecting it as incompetent.

The language of the clause is neither meaningless nor ambiguous. It simply states that the lessor's living quarters are to be converted by the lessee to banquet rooms within one year from the date of execution of the lease. The specifics of implementing the intention of the parties are absent but the liability is present. Inadequate expression of manner of performance does not extinguish the obligation of performance. Under such circumstances, parol evidence is admissible to assist the court in discovering the particulars of execution so long as the evidence does not tend to modify what is already clearly expressed (Mullen v. Washburn, 224 N.Y. 413, 121 N.E. 59).

When an ambiguity arises from a written agreement, the intention of the parties must be ascertained in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Parol evidence is admissible for this reason (O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum H. & P. Co., 280 N.Y. 50, 56, 19 N.E.2d 676, 679). In construing a contract, due consideration must be given to the purpose of the parties in making the contract (4 Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed., § 619, pp. 730-733), and wherever possible, the agreement should be given a fair and reasonable interpretation (Aron v. Gillman, 309 N.Y. 157, 163, 128 N.E.2d 284, 288, 51 A.L.R.2d 598; Frank Associates, Inc. v. John J. Ryan & Sons, Incorporated, 281 App.Div. 665, 117 N.Y.S.2d 406).

If the written agreement in any respect is uncertain or equivocal, all the circumstances leading to its execution may be shown for the purpose of elucidation but not for contradiction or modification (3 Corbin on Contracts, § 579, pp. 420-425). Extrinsic evidence is admissible to resolve the ambiguity, not to create it (Laskey v. Rubel Corp., 303 N.Y. 69, 71, 100 N.E.2d 140; Thomas et al. v. Scutt, 127 N.Y. 133, 141, 27 N.E. 961; 4 Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed., § 632-A, p. 990). In this lease the obligation assumed by the lessee is...