renewal clause in New York

1984While the court held that this renewal clause was too indefinite to be enforced, it specifically excepted this situation from one where the agreement invites recourse to an objective extrinsic event on which the amount was to depend ( 52 NY2d 105, 110-111 , supra).

1984The renewal clause at issue in Martin Delicatessen provided that “[t]he Tenant may renew this lease for an additional period of five years at annual rentals to be agreed upon” ( 52 NY2d 105, 108 , supra).

1928(Masset v. Ruh, 235 N. Y. 462 ; On v. Doubleday, Page & Co., 223 N. Y. 334 .) These business people knew what a renewal clause in a lease meant.

1924In Orr v. Doubleday, Page & Co. ( 223 N. Y. 334 ) the court lield: “ Where a tenant holding a lease of premises for ten years, which he was prohibited from "assigning, with an option of renewal, gave due notice to trustees under the will of its lessor, who was deceased, of its intention to renew the lease for another term of ten years with the understanding that such notice would be withdrawn if the court consented to accept a transfer of the lease to another party, in which event the landlord was to consent to an assignment thereof, and some months thereafter demanded an acknowledgment of the

1920Supp. 264 ; affd., 127 N. Y. 587 .) In Fruhauf s Case (supra) the court say, referring to the renewal clause: “ It was a covenant running with the land (Piggot v. Mason, 1 Paige, 412 ), and enforceable against the grantee.” Here was a permanent incumbrance as opposed to a pecuniary one.

1889It was a covenant running with the land, (Piggot v. Mason, 1 Paige, 412 ,) and enforceable against the grantee of the fee.

1995Corp., 30 AD2d 823 ; Telephone Secretarial Serv. v Sherman, 28 AD2d 1010 ).

1995Corp., 30 AD2d 823 ; Telephone Secretarial Serv. v Sherman, 28 AD2d 1010 ).

1992Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 92 ; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 , cert denied 498 US 816 ; Matter of Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Town of Babylon, 162 AD2d 689, 690 ), in this case the lease contains no means whereby the rental amount "can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483; see, Ashkenazi v Kelly, 157 AD2d 578, 579 ). * Consequently, because the renewal clause is too indefinite to be enforceable, petitioners should be granted a judgment awarding them possession of the

1992Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 92 ; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 , cert denied 498 US 816 ; Matter of Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Town of Babylon, 162 AD2d 689, 690 ), in this case the lease contains no means whereby the rental amount "can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483; see, Ashkenazi v Kelly, 157 AD2d 578, 579 ). * Consequently, because the renewal clause is too indefinite to be enforceable, petitioners should be granted a judgment awarding them possession of the

1992Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 92 ; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 , cert denied 498 US 816 ; Matter of Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Town of Babylon, 162 AD2d 689, 690 ), in this case the lease contains no means whereby the rental amount "can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483; see, Ashkenazi v Kelly, 157 AD2d 578, 579 ). * Consequently, because the renewal clause is too indefinite to be enforceable, petitioners should be granted a judgment awarding them possession of the

1992Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 92 ; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 , cert denied 498 US 816 ; Matter of Oak Beach Inn Corp. v Town of Babylon, 162 AD2d 689, 690 ), in this case the lease contains no means whereby the rental amount "can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483; see, Ashkenazi v Kelly, 157 AD2d 578, 579 ). * Consequently, because the renewal clause is too indefinite to be enforceable, petitioners should be granted a judgment awarding them possession of the

1987Although a renewal clause can be construed to confer "perpetual” rights only upon the plain and unequivocal expression of the parties (Gainer v Gerrish, 63 NY2d 575, 581 ; Levy v Amelias, 207 Misc 880, 882 , affd 1 AD2d 755 ; 51C CJS, Landlord & Tenant, § 61 [b], at 188-189), we need not decide this issue in view of the more limited relief requested by defendants, i.e., that the lease be considered renewable for successive five-year terms for their lifetimes (see, DeSantis v Kessler, 83 AD2d 766 ).

1987Although a renewal clause can be construed to confer "perpetual” rights only upon the plain and unequivocal expression of the parties (Gainer v Gerrish, 63 NY2d 575, 581 ; Levy v Amelias, 207 Misc 880, 882 , affd 1 AD2d 755 ; 51C CJS, Landlord & Tenant, § 61 [b], at 188-189), we need not decide this issue in view of the more limited relief requested by defendants, i.e., that the lease be considered renewable for successive five-year terms for their lifetimes (see, DeSantis v Kessler, 83 AD2d 766 ).

1987Corp. v Levy, 204 A2d 334 [DC]; State Rd.

1987Although a renewal clause can be construed to confer "perpetual” rights only upon the plain and unequivocal expression of the parties (Gainer v Gerrish, 63 NY2d 575, 581 ; Levy v Amelias, 207 Misc 880, 882 , affd 1 AD2d 755 ; 51C CJS, Landlord & Tenant, § 61 [b], at 188-189), we need not decide this issue in view of the more limited relief requested by defendants, i.e., that the lease be considered renewable for successive five-year terms for their lifetimes (see, DeSantis v Kessler, 83 AD2d 766 ).

1987Memorandum: Where the tenant is given the option of renewing a lease for specified periods upon the same terms and conditions except for the amount of rent and the renewal clause fixes future rents at a "reasonable market value price”, the renewal clause is not unenforceable for indefiniteness (Merman v The Surrey, 106 Misc 2d 941, 943 ; accord, Bechmann v Taylor, 80 Colo 68, 249 P 262 ; Worthington & Son Mgt.

1987Although a renewal clause can be construed to confer "perpetual” rights only upon the plain and unequivocal expression of the parties (Gainer v Gerrish, 63 NY2d 575, 581 ; Levy v Amelias, 207 Misc 880, 882 , affd 1 AD2d 755 ; 51C CJS, Landlord & Tenant, § 61 [b], at 188-189), we need not decide this issue in view of the more limited relief requested by defendants, i.e., that the lease be considered renewable for successive five-year terms for their lifetimes (see, DeSantis v Kessler, 83 AD2d 766 ).

1986Moreover, there being nothing to establish that Recess relied upon or was even aware of plaintiff’s contract with *743 Beltramini, Recess owed plaintiff no duty of reasonable care in fixing the renewal rental under its lease with Beltramini (cf. White v Guarente, 43 NY2d 356, 363 ) and cannot be said "in equity and good conscience” to have been unjustly enriched (Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 407 ; see, Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192, 197 ).

1986Moreover, there being nothing to establish that Recess relied upon or was even aware of plaintiff’s contract with *743 Beltramini, Recess owed plaintiff no duty of reasonable care in fixing the renewal rental under its lease with Beltramini (cf. White v Guarente, 43 NY2d 356, 363 ) and cannot be said "in equity and good conscience” to have been unjustly enriched (Miller v Schloss, 218 NY 400, 407 ; see, Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192, 197 ).

1984Several years later, however, in Hoff v Royal Metal Furniture Co. ( 117 App Div 884 ), where the initial term of the lease was for one year renewable “from year to year” by the tenant “its successors or assigns”, our earlier Western Transp. case was held by the Appellate Division to pose no obstacle to enforcing the original tenant’s request for a one-year renewal made during the life of the lessor who had signed the lease.

1983Improvement Co. ( 28 Misc 2d 54 , affd without opn 20 AD2d 864 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division majority, to the contrary, for that case was decided after trial and involved a sublessee's effort to use an ambiguous renewal clause in its sublease as a predicate for its exercise of the renewal privilege in the overlease.

1983Improvement Co. ( 28 Misc 2d 54 , affd without opn 20 AD2d 864 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division majority, to the contrary, for that case was decided after trial and involved a sublessee’s effort to use an ambiguous renewal clause in its sublease as a predicate for its exercise of the renewal privilege in the overlease.

1983Improvement Co. ( 28 Misc 2d 54 , affd without opn 20 AD2d 864 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division majority, to the contrary, for that case was decided after trial and involved a sublessee's effort to use an ambiguous renewal clause in its sublease as a predicate for its exercise of the renewal privilege in the overlease.

1983Improvement Co. ( 28 Misc 2d 54 , affd without opn 20 AD2d 864 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division majority, to the contrary, for that case was decided after trial and involved a sublessee’s effort to use an ambiguous renewal clause in its sublease as a predicate for its exercise of the renewal privilege in the overlease.

1981Assoc. , 63 AD2d 946 [rental increase to be adjusted for upward movement in US Consumer Price Index]; see, generally, 87 ALR3d 986; Lease Provisions Providing for Rent Adjustment Based on Event or Formula Outside Control of Parties.) But the renewal clause here in fact contains no such ingredients. *111 Its unrevealing, unamplified language speaks to no more than "annual rentals to be agreed upon".

1981Assoc., 63 AD2d 946 [rental increase to be adjusted for upward movement in US Consumer Price Index]; see, generally, 87 ALR3d 986; Lease Provisions Providing for Rent Adjustment Based on Event or Formula Outside Control of Parties.) But the renewal clause here in fact contains no such in gredients.

1981Bank v Manufacturers Trust Co., 265 App Div 406 .) The latest word on the “agreement to agree” is set forth in Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher ( 52 NY2d 105 ) in which the renewal clause in the lease stated that the tenant would renew at an additional five years at “annual rentals to be agreed upon”.