Cherry Valley Apartments, Inc., a cooperative housing corporation, commenced a nonpayment proceeding in the Nassau Couty District Court to recover such fees and charges associated with its tenant -- JC -- having performed certain unauthorized alterations, to wit: refinishing the wood floors in his unit, without the Board’s consent.
The coop argued that paragraph 21(a) of the parties’ lease required the tenant to obtain the Board’s written approval before undertaking any "alteration" to his apartment, which JC failed to do.
But since the lease did not explicitly define refinishing floors as an alteration, and because any ambiguity in the lease needed to be resolved against the drafter (in this instance, the landlord), the judge ruled in JC’s favor and dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, agreed that any ambiguities should be construed against the drafter, which in this case was the coop. Since the tenant did not violate the agreement’s terms, the AT2 concurred that no trial was necessary, and affirmed the proceeding’s dismissal.
Did they pop their Cherry there?
# # #
DECISION