Tai Wing Hong Importers, Inc. v. King Realty Corp.Tai Wing Hong Importers, Inc. v. King Realty Corp.
In an action for (1) a judgment declaring that paragraph 18 of a lease did not require the plaintiff Tai Wing Hong Importers, Inc., to make mortgage payments in addition to rent payments, and (2) a permanent injunction, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated December 16, 1991, which (1) confirmed the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer (DeMatteo, J.H.O.), dated January 2, 1991, which found that the contested portion of paragraph 18 of the lease was void because it was unintentionally included, and (2) granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of a judgment declaring void so much of paragraph 18 of the lease as requires the tenant to make mortgage payments.
In October 1987 the plaintiff Tai Wing Hong Importers, Inc. (hereinafter TWHI) as tenant, entered into an agreement with the appellant King Realty Corp. (hereinafter King) for the
In April 1989 King claimed that TWHI owed it over $620,000 pursuant to paragraph 18 of the lease for mortgage payments. TWHI responded to the claim of King by stating that the portion of paragraph 18 of the lease which required TWHI to make mortgage payments to the bank was a typographical error and was unintentionally included in the lease.
The plaintiffs commenced this action and moved for a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from seeking to recover any payments for principal and interest on the mortgage and for a declaratory judgment, stating that paragraph 18 of the lease did not require the plaintiffs to make mortgage payments. The Supreme Court referred this matter to a Judicial Hearing Officer to hear and report on the factual questions pertaining to the interpretation of the lease. Extensive hearings were held before the Judicial Hearing Officer.
The report and recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer should be confirmed if the findings in the report are supported by the record (see, Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp.,
We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.