TOH Realty Corp. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

TOH Realty Corp. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

154 A.D.2d 267, 546 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12639

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 267 (TOH Realty Corp. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.) 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

TOH Realty Corp. v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 154 A.D.2d 267, 546 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 3, 1989, dismissing appellants’ CPLR article 78 petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated in our memorandum decision in Matter of Flynn v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (154 AD2d 263 [decided herewith]).

We add only that the separate agreements regarding indemnification and funding by the city, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Public Development Corporation were correctly held to be extrinsic to the lease agreement and therefore beyond the scope of section 6 of the Urban Development Corporation Act (L 1968, ch 174, § 1, as amended). We further agree that the incorporation of a term permitting the developer to terminate the agreement in the event litigation substantially delays or adversely affects its implementation is entirely appropriate. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 3, 1989, dismissing appellants’ CPLR article 78 petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated in our memorandum decision in Matter of Flynn v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (154 AD2d 263 [decided herewith]).

We add only that the separate agreements regarding indemnification and funding by the city, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Public Development Corporation were correctly held to be extrinsic to the lease agreement and therefore beyond the scope of section 6 of the Urban Development Corporation Act (L 1968, ch 174, § 1, as amended). We further agree that the incorporation of a term permitting the developer to terminate the agreement in the event litigation substantially delays or adversely affects its implementation is entirely appropriate. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 267, 546 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toh-realty-corp-v-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack