31-32 Gourmet Corp. v. Cable Building Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

31-32 Gourmet Corp. v. Cable Building Associates

223 A.D.2d 387, 636 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 387 (31-32 Gourmet Corp. v. Cable Building Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

31-32 Gourmet Corp. v. Cable Building Associates, 223 A.D.2d 387, 636 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 12, 1995, which, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a new trial, with costs.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the terms “coffee shop” and “delicatessen” are ambiguous in the context of this case and, thus, it was error to refuse all evidence concerning the negotiations for plaintiffs lease inasmuch as such evidence bears directly on the parties’ intent. Accordingly, we remand the matter for a new trial at which the intent of the parties should be explored to determine whether plaintiff negotiated for and received the restrictive covenant so as to preclude all other eating establishments in the Cable Building other than a full scale, sit-down restaurant, and whether the Angelika Film Center’s “cafe restaurant” satisfies the exception or violates the restrictive clause as intended by the parties. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 12, 1995, which, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a new trial, with costs.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the terms “coffee shop” and “delicatessen” are ambiguous in the context of this case and, thus, it was error to refuse all evidence concerning the negotiations for plaintiffs lease inasmuch as such evidence bears directly on the parties’ intent. Accordingly, we remand the matter for a new trial at which the intent of the parties should be explored to determine whether plaintiff negotiated for and received the restrictive covenant so as to preclude all other eating establishments in the Cable Building other than a full scale, sit-down restaurant, and whether the Angelika Film Center’s “cafe restaurant” satisfies the exception or violates the restrictive clause as intended by the parties. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 387, 636 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/31-32-gourmet-corp-v-cable-building-associates-nyappdiv-1996.