Public Parking, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Parking, Inc. v. City of New York

235 A.D.2d 358, 653 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 607

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 358 (Public Parking, Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Public Parking, Inc. v. City of New York, 235 A.D.2d 358, 653 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered January 10, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion seeking either rescission of the parties’ lease or an injunction directing defendant to take back possession of the subject premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s insistence that it misunderstood that a provision of the lease authorized, but did not require, defendant to cancel the lease under certain circumstances is insufficient to establish an absence of the requisite meeting of minds as might justify either rescission or reformation. The language of the lease does not support this understanding of its meaning, and there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by defendant. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered January 10, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion seeking either rescission of the parties’ lease or an injunction directing defendant to take back possession of the subject premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s insistence that it misunderstood that a provision of the lease authorized, but did not require, defendant to cancel the lease under certain circumstances is insufficient to establish an absence of the requisite meeting of minds as might justify either rescission or reformation. The language of the lease does not support this understanding of its meaning, and there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by defendant. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 358, 653 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-parking-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack