Beekman Family Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay
228 A.D.2d 460, 643 N.Y.2d 1023, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6598
Opinion
Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant did not breach the condition subsequent contained in the deed in question was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and was, therefore, not against the weight of the evidence (see, Greenberg v Behlen, 220 AD2d 720; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Beekman Family Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay, 228 A.D.2d 460, 643 N.Y.2d 1023, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 460 (Beekman Family Ass'n v. Town of Oyster Bay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nicastro v. Park
113 A.D.2d 129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Greenberg v. Behlen
220 A.D.2d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)