Costa v. Ashburton Service Station, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Costa v. Ashburton Service Station, Inc.

89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17638

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 574 (Costa v. Ashburton Service Station, Inc.) 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

Costa v. Ashburton Service Station, Inc., 89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions (1) by the landlord for recovery of real property and (2) by the tenant for a permanent injunction preventing such recovery and for money damages, the tenant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, [575]*575J.), entered August 6, 1981, after a nonjury trial, which (a) dismissed his complaint on the merits, (b) issued a warrant of eviction in favor of the landlord, and (c) directed that a hearing be held to determine the amount of damages sustained by the landlord as a result of a preliminary injunction. Judgment affirmed, with costs. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the lease in question did not constitute a “franchise agreement” within the meaning of either the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (US Code, tit 15, § 2801) or article 11-B of the General Business Law. Moreover, we note that the force of the tenant’s argument has been largely dissipated by the reversal of the case upon which he places substantial reliance (see Checkrite Petroleum v Amoco Oil Co., 678 F2d 5). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions (1) by the landlord for recovery of real property and (2) by the tenant for a permanent injunction preventing such recovery and for money damages, the tenant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, [575]*575J.), entered August 6, 1981, after a nonjury trial, which (a) dismissed his complaint on the merits, (b) issued a warrant of eviction in favor of the landlord, and (c) directed that a hearing be held to determine the amount of damages sustained by the landlord as a result of a preliminary injunction. Judgment affirmed, with costs. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the lease in question did not constitute a “franchise agreement” within the meaning of either the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (US Code, tit 15, § 2801) or article 11-B of the General Business Law. Moreover, we note that the force of the tenant’s argument has been largely dissipated by the reversal of the case upon which he places substantial reliance (see Checkrite Petroleum v Amoco Oil Co., 678 F2d 5). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 574, 452 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costa-v-ashburton-service-station-inc-nyappdiv-1982.