Decided February 20, 2009.
In this nonpayment summary proceeding, landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated August 1, 2008, which granted tenant's motion for reargument, and upon reargument, vacated so much of its prior order awarding landlord a final judgment against tenant in the amount of $19,588.41 and directed a hearing to determine the percentage amount of the rent abatement contemplated by the parties.
Order (Peter M. Wendt, J.), dated August 1, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.
McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ.
While extrinsic evidence may not be used to determine whether a contract is ambiguous ( see W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157), we agree that the purpose and intent of the three successive stipulations of settlement entered into by the parties cannot be gleaned from the four corners of the documents. Since the stipulations, read together, are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, resort to extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish the parties' intent with respect to the disputed issue concerning the percentage amount of the contemplated rent abatement.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.