In this declaratory judgment action by plaintiffs tenant and approved subtenant against defendants successive owners of the leased premises, paragraph 72 does not apply to plaintiffs' further subletting of the premises, without the landlord's approval. Rather, read in the context of the lease as a whole, paragraph 72 applies only to transactions with the prior tenant, Simon Abitbol, Star Taxi Management, Inc., or entities related to Simon Abitbol or Star Taxi Management, Inc. If paragraph 72 is ambiguous, it was drafted by the landlord and any ambiguities therein are therefore to be resolved in favor of the tenant (see, 67 Wall St. Co. v. Franklin Natl. Bank, 37 N.Y.2d 245, 249). Since the unapproved subletting was terminated prior to the rendering of the order on appeal, there was no occasion to declare whether such subletting constituted a breach of other provisions of the lease for which the landlord was entitled to serve a notice to cure, and we modify the declaration of the parties' rights accordingly. We also modify so as to substitute the current owner as sole defendant in place of the prior owners named as defendants by the complaint, since defendants have established that title to the premises was transferred to the current owner subsequent to the commencement of the action (see, C.P.L.R 1018 N YCPLR, 1021 N.Y.CPLR; Real Property Law § 223), and plaintiffs have not opposed such substitution.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.