MacMillan, Inc. v. CF Lex Associates
New York Court of Appeals
437 N.E.2d 1134 (1982)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Campeau Corporation (U.S.), Inc. (defendant) owned the Macmillan Building, in which MacMillan, Inc. (plaintiff) was a tenant. CF Lex Associates (defendant) owned the land on which the building was located. Campeau and CF Lex, which together owned all of the land on the Macmillan Building’s block, signed a declaration of zoning lot restrictions. The declaration merged the properties on the block for zoning purposes so the block would be treated as a single lot. CF Lex also bought airspace rights above the Macmillan Building from Campeau. CF Lex’s purpose in executing the declaration and buying the airspace was to build a taller building next to the Macmillan Building than would have been possible without these transactions. A building’s total permissible bulk was based on the size of the zoning lot of which the building was apart. MacMillan, Inc. brought suit based on a New York City Zoning Resolution that required consent of each party in interest in the “tract of land” for a zoning lot merger to be effective. The New York Supreme Court granted CF Lex’s motion to dismiss on the ground that MacMillan, Inc. was not a party in interest in the tract of land. The appellate court reversed. CF Lex appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.