City Textile Printing Corp. v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City Textile Printing Corp. v. Rosenberg

27 A.D.2d 524, 276 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 524 (City Textile Printing Corp. v. Rosenberg) 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

City Textile Printing Corp. v. Rosenberg, 27 A.D.2d 524, 276 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term to the extent appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the order and judgment of the Civil Court, insofar as the samé grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Sol Rosenberg, reinstated, with costs and disbursements to plaintiff in all courts. The deadline for obtaining the mortgage commitment was missed by so short a time that the vendor’s disappointment is understandable. But the suspicion that plaintiff was responsible for the delay in securing the commitment has no foundation other than surmise and speculation, as we read the affidavits. The facts set forth raise no genuine issue either of bad faith, fraud or lack of diligence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term to the extent appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the order and judgment of the Civil Court, insofar as the samé grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Sol Rosenberg, reinstated, with costs and disbursements to plaintiff in all courts. The deadline for obtaining the mortgage commitment was missed by so short a time that the vendor’s disappointment is understandable. But the suspicion that plaintiff was responsible for the delay in securing the commitment has no foundation other than surmise and speculation, as we read the affidavits. The facts set forth raise no genuine issue either of bad faith, fraud or lack of diligence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 524, 276 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-textile-printing-corp-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1966.