Bujalski v. Schmitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bujalski v. Schmitt

186 A.D.2d 1066, 588 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11714

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1066 (Bujalski v. Schmitt) 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

Bujalski v. Schmitt, 186 A.D.2d 1066, 588 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Summary judgment should have been granted dismissing plaintiff’s complaint seeking specific performance of a sales contract. Although the contract is not invalid on the ground that it was signed by the conservator (RPAPL 1745 [1]), plaintiff’s action for specific performance, commenced before court approval of the sale was obtained, was premature. The withdrawal by the conservator of his petition seeking court approval of the sale does not necessarily defeat plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff, a relative of the conservatee, is authorized to commence such a special proceeding (see, RPAPL 1712). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Miles, J.H.O. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Summary judgment should have been granted dismissing plaintiff’s complaint seeking specific performance of a sales contract. Although the contract is not invalid on the ground that it was signed by the conservator (RPAPL 1745 [1]), plaintiff’s action for specific performance, commenced before court approval of the sale was obtained, was premature. The withdrawal by the conservator of his petition seeking court approval of the sale does not necessarily defeat plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff, a relative of the conservatee, is authorized to commence such a special proceeding (see, RPAPL 1712). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Miles, J.H.O. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1066, 588 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bujalski-v-schmitt-nyappdiv-1992.