Arol Development Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arol Development Corp. v. City of New York

214 A.D.2d 356, 625 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150

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

DecidedApril 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 356 (Arol Development Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Arol Development Corp. v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 356, 625 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J., upon decision of Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered January 26, 1994, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for partial summary judgment, declared in plaintiff’s favor that defendant is obligated to perform at its expense all work required for the maintenance, repair or replacement of the viaduct in question, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant City’s contention that the lease requires plaintiff to maintain and repair the viaduct except for a limited portion that is intersected by mapped City streets. The City’s retention of irrevocable easements that explicitly include, inter alia, the viaduct as a whole for the purpose of its maintenance, repair and replacement is unambiguous, and accordingly, plaintiff was properly granted partial summary judgment on this issue. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J., upon decision of Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered January 26, 1994, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for partial summary judgment, declared in plaintiff’s favor that defendant is obligated to perform at its expense all work required for the maintenance, repair or replacement of the viaduct in question, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant City’s contention that the lease requires plaintiff to maintain and repair the viaduct except for a limited portion that is intersected by mapped City streets. The City’s retention of irrevocable easements that explicitly include, inter alia, the viaduct as a whole for the purpose of its maintenance, repair and replacement is unambiguous, and accordingly, plaintiff was properly granted partial summary judgment on this issue. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 356, 625 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arol-development-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.