67 N.Y.2d 792 (1986)

A notice of default and termination of a lease, when required to be given by the landlord, is insufficient if signed by an attorney who is not the owner or the attorney specifically named in the lease.

Summary

This case concerns the enforcement of a commercial lease’s termination clause. The tenant, Kentucky Fried Chicken, received default and termination notices signed by an attorney not named in the lease and with whom the tenant had no prior dealings. The lease specified that the “Landlord” was to serve such notices, defining “Landlord” as the owner or mortgagee in possession. The court held that the notices were insufficient because they did not comply with the lease’s notice provisions, as they were not sent by the landlord as defined in the lease, nor by the attorney named as escrowee. Thus, the tenant was entitled to ignore the notices.

Facts

Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc. (Tenant) entered into a lease agreement. The lease contained printed provisions referring to the “Landlord or Landlord’s agent.” However, the default provision specifically stated “the Landlord serving a written five (5) days’ notice upon Tenant” followed by “Landlord [serving] a written three (3) days’ notice of cancellation.” The lease defined “Landlord” as “only the owner, or mortgagee in possession, for the time being.” The lease also included a rider with 44 typewritten paragraphs, mentioning a named attorney as an escrowee. The default and termination notices were signed by an attorney not named in the lease and with whom the tenant had no prior dealings.

Procedural History

The lower courts likely ruled on the validity of the lease termination. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether notices of default and termination of a lease are sufficient when signed by an attorney not identified in the lease as authorized to issue such notices, despite the lease specifying that the “Landlord” (defined as the owner or mortgagee in possession) must serve such notices?

Holding

No, because the notices were not in compliance with the lease provisions concerning who could provide notice. The lease specified that only the