Freehold Investments v. Richstone
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Order reversed, without costs, and the order of the Appellate Term reinstated in the following memorandum: The evidence persuasively demonstrates, as a matter of law, that the alterations were sufficiently substantial to constitute a significant injury to the reversion, entitling appellant landlord to possession of the premises.
Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Rabin. Taking no part: Judge Stevens.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Rumiche Corp. v. EisenreichNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Harar Realty Corp. v. Michlin & Hill, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Haberman v. HawkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Britton v. YaziciogluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.