Dieppe Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dieppe Corp. v. City of New York

246 A.D. 279, 285 N.Y.S. 468, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9486

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 246 A.D. 279 (Dieppe 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

Dieppe Corp. v. City of New York, 246 A.D. 279, 285 N.Y.S. 468, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Not only under the terms of the written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant The City of New York, but under the general law applicable to agreements of this nature (Gushee v. City of New York, 42 App. Div. 37), the defendant commissioner of parks of the said city had the power from time to time to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the manner in which the business was to be conducted, the nature of the provender and the prices to be charged in connection therewith. His desire for a restaurant conducted at popular prices was not an unreasonable one, nor was his definition of the salient features of such a restaurant arbitrary or unreasonable as a matter of law. The plaintiff in continually insisting upon the lack of such authority in the commissioner of parks repudiated the agreement to that extent, at least, and justified him in refusing to continue further discussions and in terminating the agreement. There was sufficient evidence, therefore, for the trial justice to conclude that the action of the commissioner of parks was not arbitrary or capricious, but reasonable and in good faith.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present ■—Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Not only under the terms of the written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant The City of New York, but under the general law applicable to agreements of this nature (Gushee v. City of New York, 42 App. Div. 37), the defendant commissioner of parks of the said city had the power from time to time to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the manner in which the business was to be conducted, the nature of the provender and the prices to be charged in connection therewith. His desire for a restaurant conducted at popular prices was not an unreasonable one, nor was his definition of the salient features of such a restaurant arbitrary or unreasonable as a matter of law. The plaintiff in continually insisting upon the lack of such authority in the commissioner of parks repudiated the agreement to that extent, at least, and justified him in refusing to continue further discussions and in terminating the agreement. There was sufficient evidence, therefore, for the trial justice to conclude that the action of the commissioner of parks was not arbitrary or capricious, but reasonable and in good faith.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present ■—Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 279, 285 N.Y.S. 468, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dieppe-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack