Hempstead Theatre Corp. v. Metropolitan Playhouses, Inc.

124 N.E.2d 332, 308 N.Y. 712, 1954 N.Y. LEXIS 1810
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 31, 1954·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We agree with the courts below that the cause of action under attack should not be dismissed for legal insufficiency. It is impossible to say what facts may be developed under the allegations of this cause of action at the trial. It may not be said, as a matter of law, that the term ‘‘ gross receipts ’ ’, as used in the percentage lease before us, excludes the entire amount of $2,000,000 recovered by the tenant in settlement of the Federal antitrust suit. In short, questions of fact are presented which must be determined upon a trial.

The order should be affirmed, with costs, the first question certified answered in the affirmative, and the second question certified answered in the negative.

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

Hempstead Theatre Corp. v. Metropolitan Playhouses, Inc., 124 N.E.2d 332, 308 N.Y. 712, 1954 N.Y. LEXIS 1810 (N.Y. 1954).

124 N.E.2d 332 (Hempstead Theatre Corp. v. Metropolitan Playhouses, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hempstead Theatre Corp. v. Metropolitan Playhouses, Inc.
16 Misc. 2d 781 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Congress Building Corporation v. Loew's, Incorporated
246 F.2d 587 (Seventh Circuit, 1957)
Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew's
234 F.2d 518 (Third Circuit, 1956)
Melrose Realty Co. v. Loew's, Inc.
234 F.2d 518 (Third Circuit, 1956)