Morays Manufacturing Co. v. Mitchel Schneider Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morays Manufacturing Co. v. Mitchel Schneider Co.

275 A.D.2d 1059

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1059 (Morays Manufacturing Co. v. Mitchel Schneider 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

Morays Manufacturing Co. v. Mitchel Schneider Co., 275 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint fails to allege facts from which it might be found that the landlord did not seek possession of the space for its “immediate and personal use”. Such a requirement is not fulfilled by the allegation that the landlord did not use the space for the specific phase of its business for which it sought possession. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; MacCrate, J. dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: On the face of the complaint it does not appear that the landlord was not going to operate a restaurant at a profit and merely as an accessory to its main business. Had the landlord sought possession for its main business, the tenant might have resisted and established that the landlord did not require the space.

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

The complaint fails to allege facts from which it might be found that the landlord did not seek possession of the space for its “immediate and personal use”. Such a requirement is not fulfilled by the allegation that the landlord did not use the space for the specific phase of its business for which it sought possession. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; MacCrate, J. dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: On the face of the complaint it does not appear that the landlord was not going to operate a restaurant at a profit and merely as an accessory to its main business. Had the landlord sought possession for its main business, the tenant might have resisted and established that the landlord did not require the space.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morays-manufacturing-co-v-mitchel-schneider-co-nyappdiv-1949.