Inconsistency Between Lease, Rider Created Ambiguity

June 30, 2006

A lease's first page contained initialed, handwritten notations indicating that the lease term would be 20 years, starting Dec. 1, 1991, and expiring Nov. 30, 2011. But paragraph 40 of the lease's rider set out a rent schedule “for a period of twelve years.” The rider also gave the tenant “the right to renew the lease for an additional eight years,” with the rent increasing each year at the same rate specified in connection with the initial 12-year term. The owner tried to evict the tenant after the 12-year term ended.

A lease's first page contained initialed, handwritten notations indicating that the lease term would be 20 years, starting Dec. 1, 1991, and expiring Nov. 30, 2011. But paragraph 40 of the lease's rider set out a rent schedule “for a period of twelve years.” The rider also gave the tenant “the right to renew the lease for an additional eight years,” with the rent increasing each year at the same rate specified in connection with the initial 12-year term. The owner tried to evict the tenant after the 12-year term ended.

A New York court refused to let the owner evict the tenant. The court noted that the lease term was ambiguous because there was an inconsistency between the lease's first page and paragraph 40 of the rider. That is, it was unclear whether the parties intended a 12-year term with an eight-year renewal option or a 20-year term with an eight-year renewal option. So the court ordered a trial to determine what the parties intended the lease's term to be.

  • Rachel Bridge Corp. v. Dishi: No. 570705/04, 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1314 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 5/26/06).

More like this