The Mortgage Bankers Association expects $805 billion in commercial mortgage originations in 2026, up 27 percent from 2025 and the most since 2022.[1] Almost none of that volume closes without a stack of estoppel certificates: the one-page form where a tenant certifies, under its own signature, that the lease is what the landlord says it is, that no default exists, and that nothing is owed beyond what the rent roll shows. Lenders lean on it instead of re-underwriting every lease by hand. Buyers lean on it to avoid discovering a side letter after closing. Tenants tend to treat it as paperwork and sign whatever the landlord’s counsel sends over.
A Fourth Department ruling from this spring says that instinct is more forgivable than landlords would like.
An estoppel certificate binds a tenant to the facts as they exist on the day it is signed. It does not reach forward and waive a right that has not yet come due.
In COR Veterans Memorial Drive Co., LLC v. Michaels Stores, Inc., the lease’s co-tenancy clause required the shopping center to be occupied by a single anchor tenant; if that condition failed for six months, Michaels could pay a reduced, alternative rent until it was cured.[2] The anchor closed its store in November 2018. Rather than backfilling with another anchor, the landlord split the space between two smaller tenants, which did not satisfy the single-anchor requirement. Two and a half years later, in June 2021, Michaels signed an estoppel certificate stating the landlord was not in default under any provision of the lease. It later invoked the co-tenancy clause anyway and started paying alternative rent. The landlord sued, arguing the 2021 certificate foreclosed that claim.
The Appellate Division disagreed, affirming summary judgment for Michaels. Its reasoning was narrow and easy to miss if you’re skimming for a bigger holding: Michaels’s right to pay alternative rent was not “in effect” at the moment it signed the certificate, so certifying “no default” that day did not sign that right away. The court did not decide the certificate was ambiguous or that it was procured unfairly. It read the document for exactly what it said, on exactly the date it was signed, and stopped there.
That reading matters more than it might look like on a five-year-old New York co-tenancy dispute. Landlords draft estoppel certificates broadly on purpose, hoping “not in default” quietly forecloses whatever the tenant might raise later. COR Veterans Memorial says a snapshot certificate does not do that, at least not for a right that is ongoing or conditional rather than settled. A tenant who has spotted a lease violation but hasn’t yet formally invoked its remedy can sign a standard, generic estoppel form without necessarily giving that remedy up, because the remedy simply wasn’t “in effect” yet.
None of that helps a tenant who already knows it has a live, matured claim and certifies around it anyway. Courts elsewhere have gone the other way when the certificate’s language reaches further than a same-day snapshot. In Plaza Freeway Ltd. Partnership v. First Mountain Bank, a California appeals court held that an estoppel certificate is conclusive as to what it actually states, and a tenant who certifies to facts it knows to be false, or agrees to certify away a claim it has already identified, can be bound by that language regardless of what the underlying lease says.[3] The line between the two cases is which right had already crystallized on the date of signing, not whether an estoppel certificate can bind a tenant at all. It usually can.
Reading the certificate against the lease it describes, not against a form#
The habit an estoppel certificate rewards is comparing it to the actual lease clause it’s supposed to describe, not to a template a lawyer has reused a hundred times. Acrebase pulls the specific default, co-tenancy, and rent-abatement language out of the underlying lease and lines it up against whatever certificate a landlord, lender, or buyer sends over, so a tenant’s counsel can see in one view whether “not in default” is being asked to cover a condition, like an unresolved co-tenancy failure, that the lease itself treats as ongoing rather than closed. The same clause library that flags a nonstandard indemnity carve-out or an unusual notice period flags a certificate whose scope quietly exceeds what the lease actually requires a tenant to certify to.
If you are a tenant, do not assume a broad “no default” certification retroactively cures a landlord breach you haven’t formally raised, but do not assume it’s harmless either; check whether your specific claim has already matured, because that is what the COR Veterans Memorial court actually looked at. If you are a landlord, know that a standard estoppel form drafted to sweep in “any and all claims, known or unknown” is doing real work that a generic one is not, and a tenant’s counsel who strikes that language is protecting something real.
Footnotes
[1] Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA CREF Forecast: Total Commercial Mortgage Originations to Increase 27 Percent to $805 Billion in 2026” (Feb. 9, 2026). https://www.mba.org/news-and-research/newsroom/news/2026/02/09/mba-cref-forecast--total-commercial-mortgage-originations-to-increase-27-percent-to--805-billion-in-2026
[2] COR Veterans Mem. Dr. Co., LLC v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02501 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2026) — Fourth Department affirmed that an estoppel certificate stating the landlord was “not in default” did not bar the tenant from later claiming a co-tenancy rent offset, because the offset right was not in effect on the date the certificate was executed. https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_02501.shtml; summarized at https://nydailyrecord.com/2026/05/05/fourth-department-commercial-lease-agreement-cor-veterans-memorial-drive-co-v-michaels-stores/
[3] Plaza Freeway Ltd. Partnership v. First Mountain Bank, 81 Cal. App. 4th 616 (2000) — California Court of Appeal held an estoppel certificate conclusive as to the matters it certifies, binding a tenant who certifies to facts it knows to be inaccurate. https://www.piercemandell.com/land-use-and-zoning/estoppel_certificates_a_primer_for_commercial_tenants
Acrebase is AI-powered contract intelligence for commercial real estate — clause extraction, risk flagging, and portfolio-wide search, plus tools for maintaining a consistent clause library and negotiation playbook across every deal a team runs. Learn more at acrebase.com, or get in touch about pricing.