Chatziantoniou v. Berkey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chatziantoniou v. Berkey

155 A.D.2d 411, 547 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 411 (Chatziantoniou v. Berkey) 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

Chatziantoniou v. Berkey, 155 A.D.2d 411, 547 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover a down payment under a canceled contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered February 24, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the down payment which they paid to the defendants pursuant to the terms of the parties’ subsequently canceled contract of sale regarding a certain parcel of real property owned by the defendants. Moreover, the mere fact that the defendants later sold the subject real property at a price in excess of that provided for in the parties’ contract of sale does not require a different result (see, Levine v Trattner, 130 AD2d 462). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover a down payment under a canceled contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered February 24, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the down payment which they paid to the defendants pursuant to the terms of the parties’ subsequently canceled contract of sale regarding a certain parcel of real property owned by the defendants. Moreover, the mere fact that the defendants later sold the subject real property at a price in excess of that provided for in the parties’ contract of sale does not require a different result (see, Levine v Trattner, 130 AD2d 462). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 411, 547 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatziantoniou-v-berkey-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack