Case Name: The Pure Oil Company, Respondent, v. Sarah Rosengarten, Appellant, Impleaded with William J. Fitzpatrick, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-02-29
Citations: 234 A.D. 508
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Pure Oil Company, Respondent, v. Sarah Rosengarten, Appellant, Impleaded with William J. Fitzpatrick, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 234
Pages: 508–510

Head Matter:
The Pure Oil Company, Respondent, v. Sarah Rosengarten, Appellant, Impleaded with William J. Fitzpatrick, Defendant.
Second Department,
February 29, 1932.
James A. Turley [.Boardman Wright and Benjamin Margolis with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Herbert M. Simon [Alfred W. Varian with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court erred in excluding evidence as to preliminary conversation between the parties as to the terms to be incorporated in the lease. We think the clause of the lease, viz., " The said renewal of five years shall, however, be subject to the right of the lessor, if he should sell the said piece of land, to terminate the same at any time upon ninety days' written notice to the lessee," is ambiguous, and the evidence excluded should have been received to show the true intention.
The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event.
Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, with opinion, in which Carswell, J., concurs.