| Ring v Printmaking Workshop, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01354 [70 AD3d 480] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Michael Ring et al., Appellants, v The PrintmakingWorkshop, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Polly Eustis, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered November 25,2008, which, after a nonjury trial, directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint,unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to direct the entry of judgment in favor ofplaintiffs consistent herewith.
Defendant tenant entered into a commercial lease with plaintiff landlords to occupy space atplaintiffs' premises. The lease ran from August 1, 1997 through July 31, 2004. After defendantfell substantially behind in rent, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement and subsequent courtorders, defendant vacated the premises in July 2001. Plaintiffs subsequently brought a June 28,2002 action against defendant seeking recovery of past arrears and future rent.
The record herein, as well as the stipulation itself, does not contain any facts to indicate thatthe parties manifestly intended the stipulation to constitute a surrender and acceptance of thepremises or that it terminated plaintiffs' rights to recover damages under the lease (seeRiverside Research Inst. v KMGA, Inc., 68 NY2d 689, 691-692 [1986]; Connaught Tower Corp. v Nagar, 59AD3d 218 [2009]; Gordon vEshaghoff, 60 AD3d 807 [2009]). Neither in the stipulation nor in the record is thereany clear and unambiguous waiver by plaintiffs of their rights to recover under the terms of thelease, regardless of the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship itself (seeConnaught at 218; Santamaria v 1125 Park Ave. Corp., 238 AD2d 259, 260-261[1997]). Inasmuch as the parties clearly contracted to make defendant liable for damagesfollowing termination, the lease provides that defendant shall be liable for rent after eviction, and[*2]that provision is enforceable (see Holy Props. v ColeProds., 87 NY2d 130, 134 [1995]; Gallery at Fulton St., LLC v Wendnew LLC, 30 AD3d 221, 222[2006]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.