Court Opinion

ID: 9800407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:14:49.31987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:40.283527
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 72. {concurring in part, dissenting in part.) This case addresses two issues: (1) whether Quad/Graphics was a subtenant or assignee and (2) whether the notice of lease extension that Gagliano provided was legally sufficient.
¶ 73. I agree with the majority when it concludes that Quad Graphics is a subtenant. Because the tenant did not transfer all rights in the lease to Quad Graphics and it was not in privity of estate with the landlord, Quad Graphics was not an assignee. Therefore, I join Part C of the majority opinion.
¶ 74. However, I part ways with the majority on the issue of the sufficiency of the notice. For the reasons *293set forth in the dissent, I agree that the majority opinion is not convincing as a matter of statutory interpretation or corporate and agency law. Therefore, I join Part I of the dissent.
¶ 75. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.