Case Law Summaries

RJS Corporation v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

LEASES; MITIGATION—Where it is unclear whether a new lease made after an earlier tenant’s default would have constituted a possible second, independent tenancy had the earlier lease not been terminated, the new lease is to be treated as one in mitigation of a landlord’s damages under the defaulting tenant’s lease.

• Opinion Date: May 10, 2001
• Real Property Law

Schmeisser v. Greenbrook Office Park Associates, Ltd.

LEASES; LIABILITY; INSURANCE—Although the indemnification provisions of a lease might not require a tenant to indemnify its landlord for a particular incident, the lease’s insurance provision might still require the tenant to provide insurance coverage.

• Opinion Date: January 25, 2001
• Real Property Law

Lauzon v. Mercer Mutual Insurance Company

LEASES; LIABILITY—A person injured by tripping on sidewalk doors leading to a tenant’s basement may make a claim against the tenant if it can be implied that the doors are part of the leased premises.

• Opinion Date: October 26, 2001
• Real Property Law

Ottaviano v. Minicozzi

LEASES; LIABILITY—Absent an express provision of a lease to the contrary, where a lease requires the tenant to notify its landlord about defective conditions and the tenant is injured because of a defect of which the landlord was unaware, the landlord is not liable for the injury.

• Opinion Date: April 24, 2001
• Real Property Law

O’Connell v. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority

LEASES; LIABILITY—Although a lease may allocate maintenance duties between a landlord and its tenant, no lease provision can absolve a tenant from its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for its patrons.

• Opinion Date: February 14, 2001
• Real Property Law

Spina v. Scanel

LEASES; LIABILITY—Exculpatory clauses must be closely examined and if there is any ambiguity, a court must determine the intention of the parties based upon all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the lease containing the clause.

• Opinion Date: January 30, 2001
• Real Property Law

Westmont Plaza-Arlington Plaza Joint Venture v. Wakefern Food Corp.

LEASES; INTERPRETATION; EXCLUSIVES—The clear intent of parties to a lease that certain rights be reserved only to the “original named tenant” will be enforced, but once a tenant no longer has a legitimate interest in enforcing a restrictive use covenant against its landlord, the exclusive use provision will lapse.

• Opinion Date: June 15, 2001
• Real Property Law

Hartz Mountain Associates v. LML Supermarkets, Inc.

LEASES; INTERPRETATION—Courts will reject literal and non-contextual readings of a lease where such a reading would abrogate the import of a paragraph as a whole.

• Opinion Date: November 9, 2001
• Real Property Law

Krutsick v. Great Coastal Express, Inc.

LEASES; INTERPRETATION—Loading docks, of which truck bumpers are an integral part, can be considered to be a structural component of the leased premises.

• Opinion Date: May 11, 2001
• Real Property Law

Stewart v. Gio’s Restaurant

LEASES; INSURANCE—Although a landlord is named as an additional insured under its tenant’s insurance, it will not be covered for an injury not related to use of the leased premises although the injury may arise out of an activity of the tenant unrelated to the lease.

• Opinion Date: April 6, 2001
• Real Property Law