Valley Leasing, Inc. v. Penfield Country Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valley Leasing, Inc. v. Penfield Country Club

86 A.D.2d 744, 449 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15302

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 744 (Valley Leasing, Inc. v. Penfield Country Club) 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

Valley Leasing, Inc. v. Penfield Country Club, 86 A.D.2d 744, 449 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s complaint alleging a lease agreement with one Richard Howell, Jr., the former golf professional at defendant country club, is insufficient to state a cause of action against the club. Nor does the fact that the club used and paid for the carts for some period of time after Howell’s employment at the club terminated constitute a ratification of the agreement. Furthermore, there has been no showing nor has plaintiff alleged in its complaint that in entering into the lease agreement, Howell was acting as an agent for defendant club. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — breach of contract.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s complaint alleging a lease agreement with one Richard Howell, Jr., the former golf professional at defendant country club, is insufficient to state a cause of action against the club. Nor does the fact that the club used and paid for the carts for some period of time after Howell’s employment at the club terminated constitute a ratification of the agreement. Furthermore, there has been no showing nor has plaintiff alleged in its complaint that in entering into the lease agreement, Howell was acting as an agent for defendant club. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — breach of contract.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 744, 449 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-leasing-inc-v-penfield-country-club-nyappdiv-1982.