Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. v. Benderson Development Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. v. Benderson Development Co.

216 A.D.2d 939, 628 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7275

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 939 (Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. v. Benderson Development 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

Ted's Jumbo Red Hots, Inc. v. Benderson Development Co., 216 A.D.2d 939, 628 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this action seeking a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment, we conclude that the record supports the court’s declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to renew its lease with defendant. Because the complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaratory judgment, the court erred in granting in its entirety the cross motion of defendant seeking dismissal of the complaint (see, Tumminello v Tumminello, 204 AD2d 1067). We modify the order and judgment on appeal, therefore, by granting in part the cross motion of defendant and by reinstating that part of the complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this action seeking a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment, we conclude that the record supports the court’s declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to renew its lease with defendant. Because the complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaratory judgment, the court erred in granting in its entirety the cross motion of defendant seeking dismissal of the complaint (see, Tumminello v Tumminello, 204 AD2d 1067). We modify the order and judgment on appeal, therefore, by granting in part the cross motion of defendant and by reinstating that part of the complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 939, 628 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teds-jumbo-red-hots-inc-v-benderson-development-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack