De Silva v. Musso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Silva v. Musso

70 A.D.2d 650, 417 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103

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

DecidedMay 28, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 650 (De Silva v. Musso) 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

De Silva v. Musso, 70 A.D.2d 650, 417 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real property, or, in the alternative, for damages, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 21, 1979, as denied his cross motion to dismiss defendants’ affirmative defenses and for summary judgment. Defendants purport to cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Howe Ave. Nursing Home v Nafus, 54 AD2d 686). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from by plaintiff, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, Special Term correctly found that there are numerous issues of fact which must be resolved at a trial. Although we have dismissed defendants’ cross appeal, we have considered and rejected their arguments (cf. Peoples Sav. Bank of Yonkers v County Dollar Corp., 43 AD2d 327, 334, affd 35 NY2d 836). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, 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 an alleged contract for the sale of real property, or, in the alternative, for damages, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 21, 1979, as denied his cross motion to dismiss defendants’ affirmative defenses and for summary judgment. Defendants purport to cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Howe Ave. Nursing Home v Nafus, 54 AD2d 686). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from by plaintiff, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, Special Term correctly found that there are numerous issues of fact which must be resolved at a trial. Although we have dismissed defendants’ cross appeal, we have considered and rejected their arguments (cf. Peoples Sav. Bank of Yonkers v County Dollar Corp., 43 AD2d 327, 334, affd 35 NY2d 836). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 650, 417 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-silva-v-musso-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack