47(h) of the lease. Tenant's argument that Landlord waived its claim to unpaid taxes is
unavailing, given the nonwaiver provision. The cases Tenant relies upon do not address
nonwaiver clauses (see 308 E. 39th St. Corp. v Tres Carabelas, 79 AD2d 952 [1st Dept
1981]; [*8]Greenberg v Furrer, 56 NYS2d 340 [App
Term, 1st Dept 1945]; Leland House v Antar, 74 Misc 2d 188 [Civ Ct, NY County
1973]).
Tenant does not indicate how Landlord failed to bill Tenant in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in the lease. As noted, Tenant acknowledges receiving monthly invoices for
taxes and it does not dispute that it received the December 2017 notice demanding unpaid taxes
due under the lease. Tenant's reliance on Ginsberg v Lo Bright Mfg. Co., Inc., 2001 NY
Slip Op 40147[U] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2001]) is misplaced because, in that case, no real
estate tax bills were provided to Tenant until days prior to the expiration of the original lease and
no demand for additional rent attributable to tax increases was made until days prior to the
expiration of the renewal term. Moreover, Ginsberg, which is not binding on this court,
does not set forth the language of the nonwaiver provision in that case. The First Department has
enforced nonwaiver provisions similar to the one in this case (see e.g. Mount Sinai Hosp. v 1998 Alexander Karten Annuity Trust, 110
AD3d 288 [1st Dept 2013]; Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v Wimpfheimer, 6 Misc 3d
127[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51693[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]; Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v
Wimpfheimer, 10 Misc 3d 138[A] [App Term 2004], 2004 NY Slip Op 51896[U] [App
Term, 1st Dept 2004]).
The court finds that Landlord complied with paragraph 47(f) by sending either yearly