| 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v 745 Jeffco Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03192 [50 AD3d 768] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd., et al., Appellants, v 745 JeffcoCorp. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Steinberg, Fineo, Berger & Fischoff, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y. (Stuart M. Steinberg and LaurieSayevich Horz of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs entered into a valid 10-yearlease with the defendants for certain retail store premises, the plaintiffs appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated January 12, 2007, which granted thosebranches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment, in effect, declaring thatthe parties did not enter into a valid 10-year lease, dismissing the second cause of action,canceling the notice of pendency, and for judgment on a counterclaim for a warrant of ejectment,and denied their cross motion, among other things, for summary judgment declaring that theparties entered into a valid 10-year lease and for leave to serve an amended complaint asserting acause of action sounding in promissory estoppel.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the SupremeCourt, Kings County, inter alia, for the entry of a judgment, among other things, declaring thatthe parties did not enter into a valid 10-year lease.
The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment declaring that the partiesdid not enter into a valid 10-year lease based, inter alia, upon the statute of frauds (seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5-703). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triableissue of fact. The plaintiffs rely on the equitable doctrine of part performance (seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]), which required conduct by them which was"unequivocally referable" to the purported 10-year lease (Burns v McCormick, 233 NY230, 234 [1922]). "Unequivocally referable" conduct is [*2]conduct which is "inconsistent with any other explanation"(Richardson & Lucas, Inc. v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 304 AD2d 462,463 [2003]). There is no evidence in the record of conduct by the plaintiffs which isunequivocally referable to a purported 10-year lease and inconsistent with any other explanation(see Lebowitz v Mingus, 100 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit (see American Bartenders Schoolv 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]; Foster v Kovner, 44 AD3d 23 [2007]; NGR, LLC v General Elec. Co., 24AD3d 425 [2005]; Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Melwani vJain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [2001]).
Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the SupremeCourt, Kings County, inter alia, for entry of an appropriate declaratory judgment (see Lanza vWagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], certdenied 371 US 901 [1962]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Florio and Chambers, JJ., concur.