(dissenting). The provisions of the lease under attack are perfectly clear, were' consciously entered into and should not be subject to impeachment by the claim of oral representations now asserted by plaintiffs. The order appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Peck, P. J., dissents in opinion.
Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. [See post, p. 863.]