Fortis Financial Services v. Fimat Futures USA
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
290 A.D.2d 383, 737 N.Y.S.2d 40 (2002)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Fimat Futures USA, Inc. (Fimat) (defendant) subleased premises from Fortis Financial Services, LLC (Fortis) (plaintiff). The premises were destroyed through no fault of either party. As the primary lease obligated it to do, Fortis paid for the repairs. Fortis then sued Fimat for restitution. Fortis relied on section 4 of the sublease, which made Fimat subject to the same obligations that Fortis bore under the primary lease. Fortis also relied on section 9 of the lease, which obligated Fimat, upon termination of the sublease, to restore the premises to their presublease condition. Fimat relied on a qualifier at the end of section 9, which arguably limited Fimat’s duty of restoration to pay for the removal of its improvements. The trial-level New York Supreme Court accepted Fimat’s interpretation of the qualifier and dismissed the case. Fortis appealed to the court’s appellate division.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
