Court Reforms Advertising Lease to Correct Scrivener’s Error That Gave Tenant Rather Than Landlord the Right To Terminate

Posted: May 13, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Ian Weiss, Channing J. Turner / Categories Contract Interpretation, Summary Judgment

Court Reforms Advertising Lease to Correct Scrivener’s Error That Gave Tenant Rather Than Landlord the Right To Terminate

On April 23, 2026, in Big City Outdoor, LLC v. JTRE 23 WS LLC, Index No. 530713/2023, Justice Reginald A. Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion in part, reforming the parties’ 2017 advertising agreement to substitute “Lessor” for “Lessee” in the termination provision.

Plaintiff held a series of agreements with defendant CS Wall Street LLC granting it the right to place advertising wraps on window space at 35 Wall Street. When the building’s commercial space was leased to a new tenant and plaintiff’s access was denied, a dispute arose over which party held the contractual right to terminate the agreement. The 2017 agreement provided that the “Lessee” had the right to terminate if the commercial space were rented or sold—but defendants argued this was a scrivener’s error, noting that the parties’ 2013 and 2014 agreements had uniformly vested that right in the landlord. Plaintiff argued the 2017 language was deliberate. In granting reformation, the Court explained:

Here, defendants have established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence their entitlement to reformation of the Agreement as a matter of law. The prior 2013 and 2014 agreements uniformly provided that the landlord had the right to terminate if the underlying space was leased or sold. The 2017 Agreement involves the exact same parties and the same general arrangement, yet contains the single anomalous substitution of ‘Lessee’ for ‘Lessor.’ Read in light of the prior agreements and the commercial context, that substitution is plainly a drafting error. The documentary record thus demonstrates that the 2017 Agreement, as written, does not accurately reflect the parties’ actual intent.

The court also found that the agreement’s renewal clause—providing for a “six year term with an option to renew for additional terms”—was unenforceable for lack of essential terms, including failure to specify the rent or duration of any renewal period.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP frequently litigate disputes involving contract interpretation, including claims for contract reformation. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.