Court should disregard the Respondent's claim that the lease terms are ambiguous since
there was never any ambiguity raised in the answer or in the Supreme Court action. The
Petitioners, in fact, state that the only real difference between the parties was the method
of calculation of the rent. The Petitioners specifically assert that the Respondent's
pre-offered interpretation, if adopted by this Court, would require this Court to run afoul
of well-settled contract principals and would require this Court to rewrite the lease
contrary to law.
With regard to the statute of limitations, there was no dispute that the
six-year statute of limitations precludes the landlord from the collection of the fixed rent
more than 6 years before the commencement of the proceeding. However, it does not
preclude the Petitioners from the calculation of the fixed rent prior to the six year time
frame.
The Petitioners lastly state that the Petitioners are entitled to late fees and
interest. The Petitioners contends that the Respondent does not dispute that the lease
provides for the payment of late fees and interest nor does the Respondent dispute the
Petitioner's method of calculating the late fees or interest. The Respondent simply asserts
that the imposition of both fees would be patently unfair to the Respondent and would
somehow unjustly enrich the Petitioners. In addition, the lease is clear that the fixed rent
and additional charges shall be paid to the Petitioners without notice or demand or
without reduction.
In addition, the lease agreement specifically provides that the tenant agrees
to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the landlord in the collection and/or
enforcement of the lease including attorney's fees, whether or not a lawsuit is