Martin Sheer Enterprises, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin Sheer Enterprises, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

55 A.D.2d 599, 389 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15304

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 599 (Martin Sheer Enterprises, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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

Martin Sheer Enterprises, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 55 A.D.2d 599, 389 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover rent allegedly due as the result of defendant’s unauthorized use of premises not covered by the lease between the parties, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 25, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the entire case, at a jury trial, and (2) the judgment entered thereon on March 30, 1976. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. The lease between the plaintiff and defendant, read in conjunction with the plans and specifications for the building, was’ not ambiguous. The interpretation of the lease was therefore a matter of law to be determined by the court (see Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169). Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover rent allegedly due as the result of defendant’s unauthorized use of premises not covered by the lease between the parties, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 25, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the entire case, at a jury trial, and (2) the judgment entered thereon on March 30, 1976. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. The lease between the plaintiff and defendant, read in conjunction with the plans and specifications for the building, was’ not ambiguous. The interpretation of the lease was therefore a matter of law to be determined by the court (see Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169). Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 599, 389 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-sheer-enterprises-inc-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack