Graystone Ltd. v. Church Oil Co.

I respectfully dissent. Three considerations lead me to find that “reasonable minds could differ” as to whether the language of the “Fourth” paragraph of the rider to the lease supports a construction terminating the leasehold in the event of a sale (see, Pikul v Clough, Harbour & Assocs., 190 AD2d 932, 933).

First, the “Fourth” paragraph unambiguously states that any improvements made by the tenant will become the property of the landlord “upon termination of the lease” except if the landlord either (a) defaults or (b) sells the property to someone other than the tenant. These two exceptions…