Daas v. Goria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daas v. Goria

25 A.D.2d 533, 267 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4958

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 533 (Daas v. Goria) 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

Daas v. Goria, 25 A.D.2d 533, 267 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 2, 1965, after a non-jury trial, dismissing the complaint. Judgment reversed, on the law and the [534]*534facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs; judgment of specific performance granted to plaintiff, without costs; and matter remitted to Special Term for the making and entry of judgment accordingly. Findings inconsistent herewith are reversed and it is found that the contract for the sale of that portion of the premises which is tax lot 21 on which a garage exists, as distinguished from the contiguous portion which is tax lot 22, on which a dwelling exists, was sufficiently described in the writing signed by the testatrix of whose will the defendants are executors. The deed should be in the ordinary form (cf. Tymon v. Linoki, 16 N Y 2d 293).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 2, 1965, after a non-jury trial, dismissing the complaint. Judgment reversed, on the law and the [534]*534facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs; judgment of specific performance granted to plaintiff, without costs; and matter remitted to Special Term for the making and entry of judgment accordingly. Findings inconsistent herewith are reversed and it is found that the contract for the sale of that portion of the premises which is tax lot 21 on which a garage exists, as distinguished from the contiguous portion which is tax lot 22, on which a dwelling exists, was sufficiently described in the writing signed by the testatrix of whose will the defendants are executors. The deed should be in the ordinary form (cf. Tymon v. Linoki, 16 N Y 2d 293).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 533, 267 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daas-v-goria-nyappdiv-1966.