Bey v. Maratea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bey v. Maratea

5 A.D.3d 713, 773 N.Y.S.2d 608

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 713 (Bey v. Maratea) 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

Bey v. Maratea, 5 A.D.3d 713, 773 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 31, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the intervenor Olufemi Falade.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint where she failed to establish that she exercised her option to purchase the subject building from the defendant [714]*714Mauro Maratea in accordance with the terms of the lease (see Mohring Enters. v HSBC Bank USA, 291 AD2d 385 [2002]; Willis v Ronan, 249 AD2d 299, 300 [1998]; cf. Kaplan v Lippman, 75 NY2d 320, 325 [1990]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 31, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the intervenor Olufemi Falade.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint where she failed to establish that she exercised her option to purchase the subject building from the defendant [714]*714Mauro Maratea in accordance with the terms of the lease (see Mohring Enters. v HSBC Bank USA, 291 AD2d 385 [2002]; Willis v Ronan, 249 AD2d 299, 300 [1998]; cf. Kaplan v Lippman, 75 NY2d 320, 325 [1990]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 713, 773 N.Y.S.2d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-maratea-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack