Bobroff v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bobroff v. Herman

2 A.D.2d 706, 153 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4861

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

DecidedJune 25, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 706 (Bobroff v. Herman) 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

Bobroff v. Herman, 2 A.D.2d 706, 153 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for the specific performance of contracts for the sale of real property and to recover damages for the breach of an alleged agreement by respondent, the vendee named in said contracts, to assign them to appellant. The appeal is from the order granting respondent’s motion, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment in his favor. Order modified by adding the word “ amended ” before the word “ complaint ” in the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. This motion was made on the complaint, the amended complaint, and respondent’s answer to the amended [707]*707complaint, and therefore the order should have provided that the amended complaint he dismissed as to respondent. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, TJghetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Action for the specific performance of contracts for the sale of real property and to recover damages for the breach of an alleged agreement by respondent, the vendee named in said contracts, to assign them to appellant. The appeal is from the order granting respondent’s motion, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment in his favor. Order modified by adding the word “ amended ” before the word “ complaint ” in the second ordering paragraph. As so modified, order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. This motion was made on the complaint, the amended complaint, and respondent’s answer to the amended [707]*707complaint, and therefore the order should have provided that the amended complaint he dismissed as to respondent. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, TJghetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 706, 153 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobroff-v-herman-nyappdiv-1956.