587 Development Inc. v. Avenue Z Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

587 Development Inc. v. Avenue Z Construction Co.

279 A.D.2d 504, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 504 (587 Development Inc. v. Avenue Z Construction Co.) 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

587 Development Inc. v. Avenue Z Construction Co., 279 A.D.2d 504, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to compel specific performance of an agreement granting the plaintiff an option to purchase certain real property owned by the defendant Avenue Z Construction Co., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.), dated October 4, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As each party raised triable issues of fact in opposition to the other party’s prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs motion and the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment were properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to compel specific performance of an agreement granting the plaintiff an option to purchase certain real property owned by the defendant Avenue Z Construction Co., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.), dated October 4, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As each party raised triable issues of fact in opposition to the other party’s prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs motion and the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment were properly denied (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 504, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/587-development-inc-v-avenue-z-construction-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack