Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:03 PM

Case Index:
00391

Citation:
Grand Central Plaza. Inc. v. Bussel, 140 A.D.2d 907, 528 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988).

Issue:
1. Whether a nonexclusive easement to use parking facilities, granted to lessee, was intended to be included in

lessee's option to purchase the leased parcel? 2. Whether real estate taxes should be considered a common

area maintenance expense to be paid by lessee?

Facts:
In 1961, Defendant's predecessor, Towers Properties, entered into a lease with Plaintiff's predecessor, Tulip

Realty, whereby Towers leased from Tulip a 2-acre parcel of a 10-acre tract for a department store. Tulip was to

construct a shopping center and parking lot on the remaining eight acres. The lease granted Towers a

onexclusive

easement for the use of the shopping center's parking lot. The lease, which was to expire in 1982, also granted

Towers the option to purchase its parcel. In 1981, Defendant exercised this option. Plaintiff claimed that the

option to purchase the parcel did not include an option to purchase the parking easement, and thus claimed

that the easement expired in 1982 with the lease. Plaintiff also maintained that under the provision of the lease

requiring Defendant to pay common area maintenance expenses, the Defendant was required to pay real estate

taxes and administrative costs. Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action to determine that the parking

easement was not part of the option and that Defendant was obligated to pay the real estate taxes. The trial

court granted Plaintiff's motion for directed verdict, and Defendant appealed.

Holding:
Reversed. The court held that the parking easement was a crucial part of Defendant's parcel, and that because

there was no room for parking on Defendant's parcel, Defendant's option to purchase would have been

meaningless without the parking easement. In addition, the court found that the original parties had intended the

 parcels to operate as one shopping center and that a common parking area was an integral part of the

shopping center. Therefore, the court held that the Defendant acquired a parking easement, as long as the

Defendant operated a department store on the land. The court also found that the common understanding of

maintenance expenses does not include real estate taxes or administrative costs, and that the Defendant,

therefore, was not

obligated to pay those expenses.

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1988

Classification 1:
Landlord and Tenant

Classification 2:
Options/First Refusals

Classification 3:

00391 - Legal Update - Winter 1988