Spring Close, LLC v Players Rest. Group Inc.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Spring Close, LLC v Players Rest. Group Inc. 2005 NYSlipOp 50539(U) Decided on April 13, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 13, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: April 13, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-686 S C

Spring Close, LLC, Appellant,

against

Players Restaurant Group Inc., Respondent.

Appeal by landlord from so much of an order of the Justice Court, Town of East Hampton, Suffolk County (L. Rana, J.), dated April 16, 2004, as granted a motion by tenant to dismiss landlord's holdover petition insofar as the petition was based on a claim that tenant breached a provision of a stipulation of settlement.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

The Justice Court properly dismissed landlord's holdover petition insofar as it alleged that landlord terminated the lease based upon a claim that tenant breached paragraph 11 of the stipulation dated September 18, 2003, which stipulation settled a Supreme Court action between the parties. The stipulation of settlement did not provide that landlord could terminate the lease based upon a default under paragraph 11, which paragraph obligated tenant to obtain certain insurance for a barn, and did not provide that this obligation would become a term and condition of the lease. Inasmuch as the law requires strict construction of language in written instruments that can work a f orfeiture of a leasehold (Lerner v Johnson, 167 AD2d 372, 375 [1990]), the absence of the above-stated language in the stipulation requires the dismissal of landlord's claim (see Chuang v Quezada, 2005 NY Slip Op 50166[U] [Civ Ct, Kings County]).
Decision Date: April 13, 2005

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.