Holmes Ambulance Service Corp. v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes Ambulance Service Corp. v. Woods

78 A.D.2d 835, 434 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13515

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 835 (Holmes Ambulance Service Corp. v. Woods) 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

Holmes Ambulance Service Corp. v. Woods, 78 A.D.2d 835, 434 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

“Intermediate judgment”, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 9, 1980, on grant of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing and vacating said judgment in toto as against defendants-appellants Woods and Taylor, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs. Although the papers leave much to be desired, there are triable issues of fact (a) as to whether the contract was altered as to the term of the restrictive covenant and (b) as to the reasonableness of the scope of the restrictive covenant. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.

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

“Intermediate judgment”, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 9, 1980, on grant of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing and vacating said judgment in toto as against defendants-appellants Woods and Taylor, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs. Although the papers leave much to be desired, there are triable issues of fact (a) as to whether the contract was altered as to the term of the restrictive covenant and (b) as to the reasonableness of the scope of the restrictive covenant. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 835, 434 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-ambulance-service-corp-v-woods-nyappdiv-1980.