Hudson River Park Trust v. Basketball City USA, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hudson River Park Trust v. Basketball City USA, LLC

17 A.D.3d 273, 792 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295

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

DecidedApril 26, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 273 (Hudson River Park Trust v. Basketball City USA, LLC) 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

Hudson River Park Trust v. Basketball City USA, LLC, 17 A.D.3d 273, 792 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered October 13, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion to the extent of finding that the lease term extended no later than December 31, 2004, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The disputed language in the lease is unambiguous. After the last term of the lease, either party had the right to cancel regardless of the status of the funding for the park. Plaintiff provided proper notice to defendant regarding its intention to terminate at the end of the term, thus effectively canceling the lease as of December 31, 2004. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered October 13, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion to the extent of finding that the lease term extended no later than December 31, 2004, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The disputed language in the lease is unambiguous. After the last term of the lease, either party had the right to cancel regardless of the status of the funding for the park. Plaintiff provided proper notice to defendant regarding its intention to terminate at the end of the term, thus effectively canceling the lease as of December 31, 2004. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 273, 792 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-river-park-trust-v-basketball-city-usa-llc-nyappdiv-2005.