San Diego Yacht Club, 76 NY2d 256, 269-270; Judnick Realty Corp. v 32 W. 32nd St.
Corp., 61 NY2d 819, 822; Long Is. R.R. Co. v Northville Indus. Corp., 41 NY2d
455; Oxford Commercial Corp. v Landau, 12 NY2d 362, 365)." Id. p. 162.
In Rasch's Landlord & Tenant, 4th Edition, 1998, Chapter 6 deals with "Construction of
Leases." There it states "[A] lease, like any other contract, is to be enforced in accordance with
the express intention of the parties to the lease" (id. p. 270). It goes on to state that the
"...application of the rules of construction [do not differ] from those applicable to an ordinary
contract" and "[I]f the interpretation of its language is necessary [those for the] construction of
contracts are to be applied...the court will so construe a lease [so] as to carry out the intention of
the parties [when] possible...for, the intent of the parties must be considered, and govern [citing
Erie County v Buffalo Bills Division of Highword Services, Inc. (4th Dept.), 42 AD2d
922]" (id. p. 270).
It goes on to observe various rules of contract construction such as "...in case of doubt or
ambiguity it must be construed most strongly against the party who prepared [the lease]...a lease
drawn by the landlord is to be construed most strongly against him...a rule of
construction...resorted to only when the words of the instrument are doubtful in meaning or
susceptible of more than one construction" [citing Benderson v Wiper Ck. Corp. (4th
Dept), 266 AD2d 903, Aff'd 95 NY2d 954] (id. pps. 277-278 and 2008 pocket part p. 35).
In Benderson v Wiper Check Inc., the Court stated:
"[T]he interpretation of an unambiguous written agreement is an issue of law for the court to
determine (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 571-572; Mallad Constr.