Bigaj v. Gehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bigaj v. Gehl

167 A.D.2d 837, 562 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 837 (Bigaj v. Gehl) 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

Bigaj v. Gehl, 167 A.D.2d 837, 562 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order appealed from is modified by reversing that part which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract and by dismissing the counterclaim. The contract for the sale of the property owned by the estate of Alvin Ashman was signed by plaintiff as executrix before letters testamentary were issued to her. Thus, at the time plaintiff signed the contract of sale, she had no power to dispose of the property (see, EPTL 11-1.3; Matter of Yarm, 119 AD2d 754) and lacked capacity to enter into the contract (see, Cohn v United States Trust Co., 127 AD2d 523). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order appealed from is modified by reversing that part which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract and by dismissing the counterclaim. The contract for the sale of the property owned by the estate of Alvin Ashman was signed by plaintiff as executrix before letters testamentary were issued to her. Thus, at the time plaintiff signed the contract of sale, she had no power to dispose of the property (see, EPTL 11-1.3; Matter of Yarm, 119 AD2d 754) and lacked capacity to enter into the contract (see, Cohn v United States Trust Co., 127 AD2d 523). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 837, 562 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bigaj-v-gehl-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack