Tops Markets, Inc. v. Congel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tops Markets, Inc. v. Congel

295 A.D.2d 1009, 743 N.Y.S.2d 370

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 1009 (Tops Markets, Inc. v. Congel) 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

Tops Markets, Inc. v. Congel, 295 A.D.2d 1009, 743 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered June 20, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in part.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover sums allegedly due under an agreement referred to by the parties as the “shortfall agreement.” Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in part and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment [1010]*1010dismissing the second amended complaint. “A court in its effort to determine the true character of an instrument must look at the nature of the right rather than to the name the parties gave it” (City of New York v Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 37 NY2d 298, 300; see Richmond Children’s Ctr. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 128 AD2d 849). Pursuant to the shortfall agreement, plaintiff is to receive compensation for the decrease in value of the premises it leases in a shopping plaza resulting from the absence of additional anchor tenants. Although the shortfall agreement labels such compensation “Rent Reimbursement Payments,” the court properly determined that defendants’ obligation to make payments under the shortfall agreement is not dependent upon plaintiff’s actual payment of rent. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered June 20, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in part.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover sums allegedly due under an agreement referred to by the parties as the “shortfall agreement.” Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in part and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment [1010]*1010dismissing the second amended complaint. “A court in its effort to determine the true character of an instrument must look at the nature of the right rather than to the name the parties gave it” (City of New York v Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 37 NY2d 298, 300; see Richmond Children’s Ctr. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 128 AD2d 849). Pursuant to the shortfall agreement, plaintiff is to receive compensation for the decrease in value of the premises it leases in a shopping plaza resulting from the absence of additional anchor tenants. Although the shortfall agreement labels such compensation “Rent Reimbursement Payments,” the court properly determined that defendants’ obligation to make payments under the shortfall agreement is not dependent upon plaintiff’s actual payment of rent. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 1009, 743 N.Y.S.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tops-markets-inc-v-congel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack