Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 290-291). In reviewing such an
agreement, it is the obligation of the court to examine the terms of the contract as a whole in
order to determine the intent of the parties (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 174;
Little v Blue Cross, 72 AD2d 200, 203). Moreover, contract terms should be given their
ordinary, popular and nontechnical [*4]meanings (see,
Benderson Dev. Co. v Schwab Bros. Trucking, 64 AD2d 447, 456)." Id. p. 904.
Decision
Paragraph 34 states in part "At
any time during this lease if lease is terminated full remainder of the lease term rent is due and
security deposit will be forfeited." The legal issue is whether this provision in this lease is
unconscionable under Real Property Law 235-c(1).
In Hovorka v Ingram, #
08-31700, Watertown City Court, 6/23/09, Harberson, J.,
NYLJ 7/14/09 (p. 33, col. 1) this Court stated:
In Rios v. Carrillo, 53 AD3d
111, the Court ruled that the "[W]ell-settled law in this state imposes no duty on a
residential landlord to mitigate damages" [citing Holy Props. v Cole Products, 87 NY2d
130]...in Holy Props, the Court of Appeals placed great weight on the fact that the
parties' lease expressly provided that [landlord] was under no duty to mitigate damages and that
upon [tenant's] abandonment of the premises or eviction, it would remain liable for all monetary
obligations arising under the lease' and therefore concluded that [if] the lease provides that the
tenant shall be liable for the rent after eviction, the provision is enforceable' (87 NY2d at 134)"
(id. p. 113).
The Carrillo Court having found that "...in the matter now before us, the lease
between the parties provides that the [tenant] remains liable for the rent...a residential landlord is