The Respondent-Tenant moves by motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding. The main issue for the Court to decide is whether Respondent effectively extended its lease until August 31, 2011 or did the lease terminate on August 31, 2009.

Independent Equipment (Independent) is a New York state corporation engaged in the business of selling and leasing construction equipment which employs nineteen people. On December 2, 2003 Independent and Windsor Star Associates entered into a lease for the premises known as 75 Windsor Avenue, Mineola. This location was convenient for Independent because it was near their principle location on Sagamore Avenue, Mineola. Independent intended to store its equipment at the leased location. Windsor Star is the managing agent and landlord for the premises by virtue of an exclusive license granted by Zacharias Rodriguez on behalf of Morsman Realty Corp., the owner of the property.

The term of the lease was from December 1, 2003 through August 31, 2006. The lease contained a provision specifically granting Independent an option to renew the lease for two years beyond the end date. The provision states that "at the end of the Lease, the tenant will have the option to renew for two years with a 3% increase per year".

Independent failed to vacate according to the terms of the lease. Subsequently, in April [*2]2007, Petitioner commenced a summary holdover proceeding against Independent. Independent made a motion to dismiss but ultimately the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. This stipulation withdrew the Petitioner's petition, agreed that Independent's motion to dismiss was moot, and extended the term of the lease until August 31, 2009. In consideration for the three year lease extension Independent agreed to pay a 4% rental increase each year from September 1, 2006 until August 31, 2009. The stipulation further stated that the other terms of the lease were to "remain in full force and effect". The stipulation did not modify or mention Independent's two year option.

On July 30, 2009, Respondent sent a letter to Morsman Realty by certified mail return receipt requested exercising the option to renew the lease:

Dear Mr. Rodriquez:

Please be advised that pursuant to the stipulation of settlement dated July 26, 2006, and the parties' lease dated December 2, 2003, Independent Equipment Corp. intends to exercise its option to renew the lease for (2) years such that the lease will expire on August 31, 2011.

Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Richard E. Bohm

Petitioner did not respond to the July 30, 2009 renewal until October of 2009 when it commenced this holdover proceeding. Petitioner contends in the petition, dated October 5, 2009, that:

7.The parties subsequently became embroiled in litigation in this Court, which litigation was settled by stipulation. A copy of said Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".

8.The Stipulation was intended to provide and did provide for the full term of the respondent's lease agreement.

9.As such, the lease agreement between the parties came to an end on August 31, 2009.

This Court finds that the said Stipulation of Settlement did not eliminate Respondent's [*3]option to extend the lease for two years. In fact, the Stipulation of Settlement states in part:

4.The lease dated December 2, 2003 for the yard space located at 75 Windsor Avenue, Mineola, NY shall remain in full force and effect, subject to the following modifications.

There is no provision which eliminates Respondent's option to extend the lease for two years.

Words and phrases in a contract should be given their plain meaning and therefore the court concludes that the option to renew remained in full force (Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 47 NY2d 111 ). The court in Long Beach Medical Center v. 249 East Park Corp [6/6/2007 N.Y.L.J. 22, (col. 3)] held:

It is a fundamental principle of contract interpretation that "when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document their writing should be enforced according to its terms." Henrich v. Phazar Antenna Corp., 33 AD3d 864 (2nd Dept. 2006). The interpretation of an unambigious contract term or provision is a matter for the court, and circumstances extrinsic to the agreement will not be considered when the parties' intent may be gleaned from the four corner of their agreement. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. 98 NY2d 562, 569 (2002); and Katina, Inc. v. Familgliette, 306 A.D.440 (2nd Dept. 2003); and Tikotzky v. New York City Transit Auth., 286 AD2d 493 (2nd Dept. 2001).

The parties clearly intended to exclude from the stipulation any mention of the option to renew thereby keeping it in "full force and effect". The court will not read an alternative intent into the stipulation.

The stipulation had several modified terms including a measurement of the premises and changes in the rental amounts. The option to renew was clearly not among these modified terms. The stipulation could have stated that the two year option had been eliminated but the parties chose not to include such a phrase. In interpreting provisions of a lease and a stipulation the court will not imply a meaning that is inconsistent with the agreement's express terms and rewrite the contract for the parties (Tantleff v. Truscelli, 110 AD2d 240, 493 NYS2d 979; Rodolitz v. Neptune Paper Products, 22 NY2d 383 ). The intent of the parties is clear that the option to renew was not modified, it remained in full force and was effectively exercised by the Respondent.

The issues dealing with the service of the predicate notice and petition therefore do not need to be addressed. The motion to dismiss is granted.

So Ordered:

/s/

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Dated:March 3, 2010

CC:Agovino & Asselta, LLP

Joseph Sanchez, Esq.

SF/mp