Armory Owners, Inc. v. Reserve 42 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armory Owners, Inc. v. Reserve 42 Realty Corp.

262 A.D.2d 221, 690 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 221 (Armory Owners, Inc. v. Reserve 42 Realty Corp.) 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

Armory Owners, Inc. v. Reserve 42 Realty Corp., 262 A.D.2d 221, 690 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, directed entry of judgment dismissing defendant-appellant’s third counterclaim, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered thereon on January 8, 1999, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We decline to disturb the trial court’s decision since its conclusions comport with a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, e.g., Birch v Carroll, 210 AD2d 119). The “heirs and assigns clause”, which appellant highlights for the first time on appeal, is only some evidence of the parties’ intent as to whether or not the parties intended that the so-called construction obligation covenant would run with the land (see, City of New York v Delafield 246 Corp., 236 AD2d 11, 24, mod 244 AD2d 272, lv denied 91 NY2d 811). The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the parties did not so intend. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, directed entry of judgment dismissing defendant-appellant’s third counterclaim, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered thereon on January 8, 1999, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We decline to disturb the trial court’s decision since its conclusions comport with a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, e.g., Birch v Carroll, 210 AD2d 119). The “heirs and assigns clause”, which appellant highlights for the first time on appeal, is only some evidence of the parties’ intent as to whether or not the parties intended that the so-called construction obligation covenant would run with the land (see, City of New York v Delafield 246 Corp., 236 AD2d 11, 24, mod 244 AD2d 272, lv denied 91 NY2d 811). The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the parties did not so intend. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 221, 690 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armory-owners-inc-v-reserve-42-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack