Legal Opinion
Brause v. 2968 Third Avenue, Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided June 4, 1964PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
While the trial court erred in holding that the termination provision of the lease was a “ condition ” rather than a “ conditional limitation ” (see, generally, Burnee Corp. v. Uneeda Pure Orange Drink Co., 132 Misc. 435; Ehret Holding *692Corp. v. Anderson Galleries, 138 Misc. 722), the court properly had jurisdiction of the subject matter so as to reach a decision on the merits.
The judgment should be affirmed, with $25 costs.
Concur — Gold, J. P., Tilzeb and Hofstadter, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, etc.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burnee Corp. v. Uneeda Pure Orange Drink Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1928
- Louis J. Ehret Holding Corp. v. Anderson Galleries, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1930
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cooper v. MorinNew York Supreme Court · 1977
- Kirschenbaum v. M-T-S Franchise Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1974
- 220 West 42 Associates v. Ronbet Newmark Co.New York Supreme Court · 1975
- Grabino v. Howard Stores Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1981
- Family Showtime Theatres of Bay Parkway, Inc. v. Toys "R" Us-Nytex, Inc. (In Re Family Showtime Theatres, Inc.)District Court, E.D. New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.