Bergoffen v. Hobart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bergoffen v. Hobart

235 A.D. 639

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 639 (Bergoffen v. Hobart) 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

Bergoffen v. Hobart, 235 A.D. 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, as resettled, denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on authority of N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinley (246 N. Y. 40). Lazansky, P. J., Young and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order on the ground that the contract is too indefinite and uncertain as a basis for an action for specific performance.

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

Order, as resettled, denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on authority of N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinley (246 N. Y. 40). Lazansky, P. J., Young and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order on the ground that the contract is too indefinite and uncertain as a basis for an action for specific performance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergoffen-v-hobart-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack