Feldman v. B.M.A.K. Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldman v. B.M.A.K. Construction Corp.

105 A.D.2d 726, 481 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20841

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 726 (Feldman v. B.M.A.K. Construction Corp.) 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

Feldman v. B.M.A.K. Construction Corp., 105 A.D.2d 726, 481 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, etc., plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bur-stein, J.), dated February 14, 1984, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In view of the inadequacy of the papers submitted and the unverified nature of the pleadings, we conclude that there are issues of fact relating to economic duress, and particularly, whether under the circumstances “the ordinary remedy of an action for breach of contract would not [have been] adequate” (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 131) as an alternative to defendants’ execution of a later contract providing for higher prices and personal guarantees. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, etc., plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bur-stein, J.), dated February 14, 1984, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In view of the inadequacy of the papers submitted and the unverified nature of the pleadings, we conclude that there are issues of fact relating to economic duress, and particularly, whether under the circumstances “the ordinary remedy of an action for breach of contract would not [have been] adequate” (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 131) as an alternative to defendants’ execution of a later contract providing for higher prices and personal guarantees. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 726, 481 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldman-v-bmak-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack