LEASE PROVIDED FOR CONTINUED RESIDENCY (SUBJECT TO RENT PAYMENT)
After a landlord brought a licensee holdover against a superintendent -- seeking to evict him because his employment had been terminated -- the New York County Civil Court ended up dismissing the case, because he had been given an enforceable 5-year lease agreement which allowed him to remain in possession even after he lost his job.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, First Department, noted that the Civil Court had “correctly interpreted the unambiguous lease provisions.” Notably, the document provided that if the super’s employment ended, he could stay in place for the remaining balance of the agreement’s 5-year term, subject to the provision of a month’s security, and payment of the monthly rent (then in the amount of $3000), together with charges associated with gas and utilities. (His rent was to “increase by five percent (5%) on each respective November.”)
Given that the contract was “complete, clear and unambiguous on its face,” the AT1 concluded that a “licensee” holdover wasn’t properly maintainable, and that the parties’ contract needed to “be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.”
Bet that landlord didn’t think that was super.
# # #
DECISION