Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
Where a tenant's notice of assignment to a landlord is untimely by 2 days, the tenant may not assign the lease to a third party without recourse. Lincoln Place, LLC v. RVP Consulting, Inc., et al., Nos.5519, 5520, 5521, 791 N.Y.S. 2d 31, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2005.
The landlord and tenant entered into a lease for commercial space. The lease provided that the tenant could designate a new lessee without recourse as long as the designation was made before Nov. 1, 1997. The lease further provided that the tenant could assign the space, but would remain liable for rent. On Oct. 29, 1997, the tenant mailed a letter to the landlord that informed the landlord it would be assigning its interest in the lease to Omega Lincoln. Thereafter, the landlord commenced an action against the tenant for breach of the lease and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the landlord's summary judgment motion and the tenant appealed. The appellate court affirmed. It held that the lease unambiguously directed that although the landlord is only entitled to notice of any designation, such notice is deemed received by the landlord 5 days after the deposit of the notice with the post office. Here, because the tenant did not deposit the letter with the post office until Oct. 29, 1997, it was not deemed delivered until Nov. 3, 1997, which was 2 days later than the date permissible in the lease.
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
Where a tenant's notice of assignment to a landlord is untimely by 2 days, the tenant may not assign the lease to a third party without recourse. Lincoln Place, LLC v. RVP Consulting, Inc., et al., Nos.5519, 5520, 5521, 791 N.Y.S. 2d 31, Supreme Court of
The landlord and tenant entered into a lease for commercial space. The lease provided that the tenant could designate a new lessee without recourse as long as the designation was made before Nov. 1, 1997. The lease further provided that the tenant could assign the space, but would remain liable for rent. On Oct. 29, 1997, the tenant mailed a letter to the landlord that informed the landlord it would be assigning its interest in the lease to Omega Lincoln. Thereafter, the landlord commenced an action against the tenant for breach of the lease and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the landlord's summary judgment motion and the tenant appealed. The appellate court affirmed. It held that the lease unambiguously directed that although the landlord is only entitled to notice of any designation, such notice is deemed received by the landlord 5 days after the deposit of the notice with the post office. Here, because the tenant did not deposit the letter with the post office until Oct. 29, 1997, it was not deemed delivered until Nov. 3, 1997, which was 2 days later than the date permissible in the lease.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.