Falk v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falk v. Goodman

7 A.D.2d 1014, 185 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9574

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 1014 (Falk v. Goodman) 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

Falk v. Goodman, 7 A.D.2d 1014, 185 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by the vendee named in a contract for the purchase and sale of real property to recover money deposited upon the execution thereof on the ground that he was unable to obtain a mortgage loan as provided in the contract. The action is against a third-party depositary who held the money under an escrow agreement. The appeal is from an order granting a motion for summary judgment striking out the answer, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, to deny the motion and to vacate the judgment, with the following memorandum: The question whether respondent made a bona fide effort to procure the mortgage, which he now claims he was unable to obtain (cf. Wigand v. Bachmannn-Bechtel Brewing Co., 222 N. Y. 272, 277), should not be summarily decided on a motion pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice (cf. Suslensky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, 626, affd. 267 App. Div. 812; Newman v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 281 App. Div. 852; Rosenthal v. Horlick, 7 A D 2d 924). [14 Misc 2d 964.]

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

Action by the vendee named in a contract for the purchase and sale of real property to recover money deposited upon the execution thereof on the ground that he was unable to obtain a mortgage loan as provided in the contract. The action is against a third-party depositary who held the money under an escrow agreement. The appeal is from an order granting a motion for summary judgment striking out the answer, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, to deny the motion and to vacate the judgment, with the following memorandum: The question whether respondent made a bona fide effort to procure the mortgage, which he now claims he was unable to obtain (cf. Wigand v. Bachmannn-Bechtel Brewing Co., 222 N. Y. 272, 277), should not be summarily decided on a motion pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice (cf. Suslensky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, 626, affd. 267 App. Div. 812; Newman v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 281 App. Div. 852; Rosenthal v. Horlick, 7 A D 2d 924). [14 Misc 2d 964.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 1014, 185 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falk-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack