From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann Theatres Corp. v. Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 7, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 930 (N.Y. 1984)

Opinion

Argued May 8, 1984

Decided June 7, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Andrew J. Di Paolo, J.

Kenneth B. Forrest, Herbert M. Wachtell and Marc Wolinsky for Mann Theatres Corporation of California, appellant-respondent.

Michael D. Hess and Michael Luskin for Brighton Theatre Corporation, appellant-respondent.

Daniel L. Carroll, Milton Popper, Denise Y. Turner and A. Walter Socolow for Mid-Plaza Associates and another, appellants-respondents.

A. Thomas Levin and Theodore Daniels for respondent-appellant.



Cross appeal taken as or right by Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co. dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that cross-appellant is not aggrieved by the modification at the Appellate Division (CPLR 5601, subd [a], par [iii]), and motion by cross-appellant made on oral argument for leave to appeal granted. Order affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Leon D. Lazer at the Appellate Division ( 94 A.D.2d 466); the remaining time within which appellants may cure the violation of paragraph 11 of the ground lease will commence to run on service on appellants, with notice of entry, of a copy of the order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, to be entered on the remittitur of this court.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE.


Summaries of

Mann Theatres Corp. v. Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 7, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 930 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

Mann Theatres Corp. v. Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co.

Case Details

Full title:MANN THEATRES CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA et al., Appellants-Respondents, v…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 7, 1984

Citations

62 N.Y.2d 930 (N.Y. 1984)
479 N.Y.S.2d 213
468 N.E.2d 51

Citing Cases

Siegel v. Kentucky Chicken

With this rule we whole-heartedly agree. Reeder v Sayre ( 70 N.Y. 180, 188) is not to the contrary, as the…

Xiotis Restaurant Corp. v. LSS Leasing Ltd. Liab. Co.

d 428). A tenant seeking Yellowstone relief must demonstrate that: (1) it holds a commercial lease, (2) it…