Foot Locker leased some equipment from Defendant for use in its corporate offices. The term of the lease expired and Foot Locker duly notified Defendant of its intention to return the equipment, rather than renew the lease for another year pursuant to an automatic renewal clause.
Nevertheless, Defendant refused to pick up the equipment, as it had done at the end of previous leases, and instead, demanded that Foot Locker return the equiptment to a paritcular location. Foot Locker requested instructions on how to break down the equipment and the means by which to crate and ship the equipment back to Defendant, as the lease required. Defendant claimed it orally instructed Foot Lcoker on how to do so, but Foot Locker disputed this and otherwise argued the instructions needed to be in writing.
Foot Locker sued seeking a declaration that it was not in breach of the lease and was not required to make another years worth of payments. Defendant counterclaimed for breach and damages. After the Court denied Foot Locker summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed, I tried the action in Supreme Court, New York County, and this decision followed.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.