Bodnar v. Maccaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bodnar v. Maccaro

24 A.D.2d 624, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475

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

DecidedJuly 19, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 624 (Bodnar v. Maccaro) 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

Bodnar v. Maccaro, 24 A.D.2d 624, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to reform a lease and for other relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, respectively entered December 2, 1964 and January 8, 1965 which: (a) denied his motion for summary judgment; and (b) on defendant’s cross motion for such relief, dismissed the complaint and adjudged that the defendant had validly exercised his option under said lease so as to extend the term thereof. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking out its second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint and adjudged that the defendant validly exercised his option under the lease; and (2) by substituting therefor a new decretal paragraph denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff; and the judgment is vacated. In our opinion, issues of fact exist which must be tried. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to reform a lease and for other relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, respectively entered December 2, 1964 and January 8, 1965 which: (a) denied his motion for summary judgment; and (b) on defendant’s cross motion for such relief, dismissed the complaint and adjudged that the defendant had validly exercised his option under said lease so as to extend the term thereof. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking out its second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint and adjudged that the defendant validly exercised his option under the lease; and (2) by substituting therefor a new decretal paragraph denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff; and the judgment is vacated. In our opinion, issues of fact exist which must be tried. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 624, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodnar-v-maccaro-nyappdiv-1965.