3301-3303 Hempstead Turnpike Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Angela Oresti Salons, Ltd.

New York Court of Appeals

3301-3303 Hempstead Turnpike Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Angela Oresti Salons, Ltd.

458 N.E.2d 374, 60 N.Y.2d 843, 470 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3515

DecidedNovember 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 458 N.E.2d 374 (3301-3303 Hempstead Turnpike Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Angela Oresti Salons, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

3301-3303 Hempstead Turnpike Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Angela Oresti Salons, Ltd., 458 N.E.2d 374, 60 N.Y.2d 843, 470 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3515 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The factual determination of that court — that the hours prescribed by the franchisor-landlord during which the establishment of the franchisee-tenant were to be kept open were “reasonably” determined by the former within the contemplation of the franchise agreements between the parties — more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence and is not affected by any error of law. Similarly, it was not error for the Appellate Division to have concluded that the franchisee-tenant was obligated to pay [845]*845attorney’s fees under the franchise agreements. Nonperformance of these obligations warranted the landlord-franchisor to terminate the franchise agreements and the associated lease.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The factual determination of that court — that the hours prescribed by the franchisor-landlord during which the establishment of the franchisee-tenant were to be kept open were “reasonably” determined by the former within the contemplation of the franchise agreements between the parties — more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence and is not affected by any error of law. Similarly, it was not error for the Appellate Division to have concluded that the franchisee-tenant was obligated to pay [845]*845attorney’s fees under the franchise agreements. Nonperformance of these obligations warranted the landlord-franchisor to terminate the franchise agreements and the associated lease.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 N.E.2d 374, 60 N.Y.2d 843, 470 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3301-3303-hempstead-turnpike-beauty-salon-inc-v-angela-oresti-salons-ny-1983.