Christopher Durdan

The tenant applied for a declaration that it had validly exercised an option to purchase commercial property under a lease agreement and sought specific performance compelling the landlord to sell the property at an appraised value.

The landlord opposed and brought a cross‑application alleging the tenant breached the lease by failing to reimburse property taxes and arguing the appraisal used to determine the purchase price was unfair and obtained without proper input.

The court held that the lease clearly required the purchase price to be determined by a specific named appraiser and that the resulting appraisal was valid and unbiased.

The court also interpreted the lease to place responsibility for realty taxes on the landlord, rejecting the landlord’s claim for reimbursement.

The tenant had properly exercised the option to purchase and was entitled to specific performance of the sale at the appraised value.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds advanced under a mortgage secured against commercial property.

The defendants argued they did not understand the transaction and asserted additional undocumented cash payments and disputes regarding credits for merchandise.

The court found the documentary record clear that $1,200,000 had been advanced with independent legal advice and that the mortgage was properly registered.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount with contractual prejudgment interest, and a writ of possession was ordered.

Two discrete issues relating to the value of merchandise credited against the mortgage and the amount of documented cash interest payments were referred to a summary trial.