Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard v Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC

Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard v Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 06933 Decided on October 4, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 4, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
5611 603167/09

[*1]Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Crenshaw Communications, et al., Defendants.



 
The Abramson Law Group, PLLC, New York (Robert F. Martin
of counsel), for appellants.
Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., New York (Jed
M. Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 21, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, Stanton Public Relations & Marketing and Alexander H. Stanton's (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second and third causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The stipulation on which defendants rely does not clearly and unambiguously manifest an intent on plaintiff's part to release defendants from future rent obligations under the lease (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]; NAB Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 276 AD2d 388 [2000]).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.