## Facts

- Camatron Sewing Machine, Inc. leased commercial space in a Manhattan building under a 10-year lease (Sept. 1, 1984–Aug. 31, 1994), including all rentable ground-floor space (store and administrative/executive offices), basement manufacturing space, and the entire seventh-floor warehouse.
- The lease permitted the landlord, without constituting an eviction or incurring liability, to change the arrangement or location of “public entrances, passageways, doors, doorways … or other public parts of the building.”
- In August 1988, the landlord notified Camatron of a lobby renovation plan that would remove a lobby wall adjacent to Camatron’s ground-floor administrative office and rebuild it three feet into Camatron’s space.
- The proposed change would permanently take about 46.5 square feet, approximately 25% of the administrative-office area, though about 1% of Camatron’s total leased area in the building.
- Camatron sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the encroachment into demised space would constitute a partial actual eviction and was not authorized by the “public parts” clause.
- The landlord argued the loss was de minimis relative to Camatron’s total square footage and within the lease’s authorization to alter public/common areas.

## Issues

1. Whether a lease clause allowing the landlord to alter “public parts” of a building without constituting an eviction authorizes a permanent encroachment into and appropriation of the tenant’s demised premises.
2. Whether a permanent physical taking of a small portion of demised premises can constitute a partial actual eviction regardless of the percentage of total leased space taken.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the landlord.
- The court held that the “public parts” clause did not authorize the landlord to take any portion of Camatron’s demised office space to expand the lobby.
- The court held that a permanent physical appropriation of any part of the demised premises may constitute a partial actual eviction, and is not defeated by a de minimis argument based on overall square footage.
- The matter was remitted, permitting Camatron to proceed with its claims for relief based on the proposed encroachment.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord’s contractual right to alter or relocate common/public areas does not, absent clear language, include the right to appropriate demised premises.
- A permanent physical taking of any portion of the tenant’s demised space by the landlord may constitute a partial actual eviction, without regard to the portion’s size relative to the tenant’s total leasehold.
- Renovation rights that cause temporary interference are treated differently from renovations that permanently reduce or reclassify demised premises as common area.
- Lease provisions are construed in context; general “no eviction/no liability” language does not waive tenant claims for a physical loss of demised premises unless the lease clearly authorizes such a reduction.

## Conclusion

The court held that a clause permitting alterations to public parts of a building could not be used to justify a permanent taking of demised tenant space, and that even a small permanent encroachment may amount to a partial actual eviction, requiring denial of summary judgment for the landlord.


Camatron Sewing Mach., Inc. v. F.M. Ring Assocs., Inc., 179 A.D.2d 165, 582 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dep’t 1992)