Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Citation
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Parent Document
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-03-30
Other Sections in This Document (43)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
- Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
Full Text
1,122 charsFACTS AND TRAVEL The landlord, Apple Valley Mall, LLC (plaintiff), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island. In July 1996, the plaintiff became the successor in interest and lessor of commercial property located on Putnam Pike, in Smithfield, Rhode Island, (leased premises), under a certain Amended and Restated Shopping Center Lease (lease) dated May 1, 1991. The tenant, Floyd Realty Co., Inc. (defendant), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island and is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Stop Shop Supermarket Company. In February 1996, the defendant became the successor in interest and lessee of the leased premises under the terms of the lease. However, the defendant does not occupy the leased premises but has duly subleased the leased premises to two retail subtenants with the plaintiff's permission. Moreover, the plaintiff has entered into nondisturbance agreements with the subtenants that provide for a continuation of the subleases such that the subtenants' possession will not be disturbed if the defendant's interest is terminated.