ZBM Food Service Corp. v. Olympia & York Properties Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ZBM Food Service Corp. v. Olympia & York Properties Co.

178 A.D.2d 355

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 355 (ZBM Food Service Corp. v. Olympia & York Properties 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

ZBM Food Service Corp. v. Olympia & York Properties Co., 178 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered November 15, 1990, which, inter alia, [356]*356directed plaintiff to reimburse defendants for 50% of the cost and expenses of posting a security guard at plaintiff’s lobby door, including the minimum shift required for said guard, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s contentions that the order on appeal does not conform to the stipulation entered into by the parties in open court. By that stipulation the parties agreed that plaintiff would equally share in defendants’ cost of posting a security guard at the lobby entrance to plaintiff’s restaurant. There was no agreement with respect to base rates of pay, or whether payment would be made at regular, overtime or extended time rates. Therefore, it would have been improper for the court to adopt these terms proposed by plaintiff by incorporating them into its order.

To the extent plaintiff asserts claims in connection with defendants’ performance pursuant to the order, such are better made to the IAS court in the first instance. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered November 15, 1990, which, inter alia, [356]*356directed plaintiff to reimburse defendants for 50% of the cost and expenses of posting a security guard at plaintiff’s lobby door, including the minimum shift required for said guard, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s contentions that the order on appeal does not conform to the stipulation entered into by the parties in open court. By that stipulation the parties agreed that plaintiff would equally share in defendants’ cost of posting a security guard at the lobby entrance to plaintiff’s restaurant. There was no agreement with respect to base rates of pay, or whether payment would be made at regular, overtime or extended time rates. Therefore, it would have been improper for the court to adopt these terms proposed by plaintiff by incorporating them into its order.

To the extent plaintiff asserts claims in connection with defendants’ performance pursuant to the order, such are better made to the IAS court in the first instance. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zbm-food-service-corp-v-olympia-york-properties-co-nyappdiv-1991.