Legal Opinion
Todd v. Krolick
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 5, 1984PublishedCited by 17 opinions
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The complaint does not state a cause of action because, as the Appellate Division held (96 AD2d 695), the washing machine agreement between plaintiff and Monarch Associates which plaintiff seeks to enforce against defendants, Monarch’s successor in title, is a license, not a lease or easement. The complaint is insufficient for the further reason that it fails to allege that the agreement, which purported to bind Monarch and its successors for a period of 10 years, was recorded. Under sections 290…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Andy Associates, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Todd v. KrolickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Wash-O-Matic Laundry Co. v. 621 Lefferts Avenue Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1948
- General Meter Service Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1943
- General Meter Service Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. v. Vilmorin & CieDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- Jackson v. Dow Chemical Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Figueroa v. TsoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Town of Minerva v. Essex County Industrial Development AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.