Martek Investors, Inc. v. Morris Smith Carting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martek Investors, Inc. v. Morris Smith Carting Co.

99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16930

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 668 (Martek Investors, Inc. v. Morris Smith Carting Co.) 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

Martek Investors, Inc. v. Morris Smith Carting Co., 99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There are factual questions pertaining to whether the business of the proposed assignee was such that under paragraph 10 of the lease the lessor could properly withhold its consent to the assignment. Summary judgment was, therefore, properly denied to each party (CPLR 3212, subd [b]). The lessee’s notice of termination in the letter of December 6,1982 (assuming the lessee is ultimately found to have the right to terminate under paragraph 10) was, we hold, timely served. The lessor has demonstrated no right to a preliminary injunction and that motion was properly denied (see Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, 83 AD2d 316, 324). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There are factual questions pertaining to whether the business of the proposed assignee was such that under paragraph 10 of the lease the lessor could properly withhold its consent to the assignment. Summary judgment was, therefore, properly denied to each party (CPLR 3212, subd [b]). The lessee’s notice of termination in the letter of December 6,1982 (assuming the lessee is ultimately found to have the right to terminate under paragraph 10) was, we hold, timely served. The lessor has demonstrated no right to a preliminary injunction and that motion was properly denied (see Niagara Recycling v Town of Niagara, 83 AD2d 316, 324). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 668, 472 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martek-investors-inc-v-morris-smith-carting-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack