Case Name: Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., Respondent, v. Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-10-04
Citations: 88 A.D.3d 452
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., Respondent, v Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 452–452

Head Matter:
Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., Respondent, v Stanton Crenshaw Communications, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
[930 NYS2d 435]

Opinion:
The stipulation on which defendants rely does not clearly and unambiguously manifest an intent on plaintiffs part to release defendants from future rent obligations under the lease (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]; NAB Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 276 AD2d 388 [2000]).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.