Center Green, Inc. v. Boehm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Center Green, Inc. v. Boehm

247 A.D.2d 869, 668 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1185

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 869 (Center Green, Inc. v. Boehm) 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

Center Green, Inc. v. Boehm, 247 A.D.2d 869, 668 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action alleging anticipatory breach of a lease agreement. Defendant presented proof establishing that he exercised his unqualified right to terminate the agreement on notice pursuant to an unconditional termination clause (see, Big Apple Car v City of New York, 204 AD2d 109, 111; Smith & Co. v Chapin Mfg. Works [appeal No. 1], 55 AD2d 1023), and plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action alleging anticipatory breach of a lease agreement. Defendant presented proof establishing that he exercised his unqualified right to terminate the agreement on notice pursuant to an unconditional termination clause (see, Big Apple Car v City of New York, 204 AD2d 109, 111; Smith & Co. v Chapin Mfg. Works [appeal No. 1], 55 AD2d 1023), and plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 869, 668 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/center-green-inc-v-boehm-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack