Swartz v. War Memorial Commission of Rochester
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
267 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1966)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
By contract with the War Memorial Commission of Rochester (Commission) (defendant), Sam Swartz (plaintiff) held the exclusive right to provide concession services at the Rochester War Memorial Building. At the time the contract was signed, sales of alcohol were prohibited by the Commission. The contract provided, however, that in the event the prohibition were lifted, the rights of Swartz and the Commission under the contract would extend to alcohol sales. The contract further provided that Swartz would hold all licenses required for his operations under the agreement. On November 15, 1965, the Commission lifted its ban on alcohol sales, but Swartz refused to apply for a license to sell alcohol. On November 30, 1965, the Commission informed Swartz that unless he applied for a license within 30 days, his contract would be terminated. Swartz sought a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to hold exclusive rights to concession sales notwithstanding his decision not to sell alcohol. The trial court judge dismissed Swartz’s claim for lack of merit, which he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
