184th Street Ziv Realty Corp. v. Enesbe Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

184th Street Ziv Realty Corp. v. Enesbe Corp.

60 A.D.2d 835, 400 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9844

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 835 (184th Street Ziv Realty Corp. v. Enesbe Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

184th Street Ziv Realty Corp. v. Enesbe Corp., 60 A.D.2d 835, 400 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover a deposit given in connection with a contract to purchase realty, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 21, 1977, which granted defendant Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision granting Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint and substituting therefor a provision that the said motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The correspondence submitted with Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss does not constitute sufficient documentary evidence upon which a complaint may be dismissed. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover a deposit given in connection with a contract to purchase realty, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 21, 1977, which granted defendant Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision granting Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss the complaint and substituting therefor a provision that the said motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The correspondence submitted with Enesbe Corporation’s motion to dismiss does not constitute sufficient documentary evidence upon which a complaint may be dismissed. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 835, 400 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/184th-street-ziv-realty-corp-v-enesbe-corp-nyappdiv-1978.