American Book Co. v. Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc.
1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1777, 59 Misc. 2d 31, 297 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a lease requires a landlord's consent for a sublease shall not be unreasonably withheld, the landlord's refusal must be based on objective, commercially reasonable criteria related to the proposed subtenant and the leased property. A landlord's subjective objections based on personal taste, convenience, or philosophical or ideological differences with the proposed subtenant are not reasonable grounds for withholding consent.
Facts:
- American Book Company leased three floors in a commercial office building under a lease requiring the landlord's consent for any sublease.
- A rider to the lease specified that the landlord's consent "shall not be unreasonably withheld."
- During the lease term, ownership of the building transferred to the Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc.
- American Book Company decided to vacate its space and, in September 1968, sought the landlord's consent to sublet the premises to Planned Parenthood-World Population.
- The proposed subtenant intended to use the space for the same purposes as American Book Company: executive and general offices, and a stockroom.
- The Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc. refused to consent, stating that Planned Parenthood's activities were "inconsistent with the present use of the premises and with the educational activities of the University."
Procedural Posture:
- American Book Company (plaintiff-tenant) filed an action in a New York trial court against Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc. (defendant-landlord).
- The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the defendant was obligated to consent to a proposed sublease with Planned Parenthood.
- The plaintiff also sought an injunction to compel the defendant to specifically perform its agreement not to withhold consent unreasonably.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord unreasonably withhold consent to a sublease, in violation of a lease provision, by rejecting a proposed subtenant based on the landlord's philosophical objections to the subtenant's activities and fear of potential controversy?
Opinions:
Majority - Edward J. Greenfield, J.
Yes, the landlord unreasonably withheld consent. A landlord's right to refuse consent to a sublease must be based on objective standards, not subjective criteria. The court established that reasonable, objective grounds for refusal include the subtenant's financial irresponsibility, the unsuitability of the subtenant's business for the building, the illegality of the proposed use, or an incompatible nature of occupancy. However, a landlord's personal taste, convenience, philosophical differences, or fear of controversy are subjective criteria and do not constitute reasonable grounds for withholding consent. When a religiously-affiliated institution owns and operates a commercial property, it is held to the same commercial standards as any other landlord and cannot impose its doctrinal beliefs on tenants. The successor landlord, Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc., acquired no greater rights than its commercial predecessors and could not use its unique identity to create new, subjective grounds for refusal that were not part of the original agreement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of "unreasonably withheld" in commercial lease consent clauses, establishing that the standard for reasonableness is objective and commercial in nature. It significantly curtails a landlord's ability to reject a subtenant for reasons unrelated to the tenant's qualifications or the proposed use of the property. The ruling is particularly impactful for properties owned by institutions with strong ideological or religious identities, confirming that in a commercial context, they must adhere to secular, objective business standards and cannot act as censors over their tenants' beliefs or activities.
Unlock the full brief for American Book Co. v. Yeshiva University Development Foundation, Inc.