Fisher v. Vietri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Vietri

44 A.D.2d 834, 355 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034

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

DecidedMay 13, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 834 (Fisher v. Vietri) 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

Fisher v. Vietri, 44 A.D.2d 834, 355 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract of sale of real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 5, 1973, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, together with ancillary relief pursuant to the provisions of the contract. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The motion papers raise substantial issues of fact concerning whether the defendant vendor fully attempted in good faith to remove the outstanding violation on the property in accordance with the provision of the contract. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscelle, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract of sale of real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 5, 1973, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, together with ancillary relief pursuant to the provisions of the contract. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The motion papers raise substantial issues of fact concerning whether the defendant vendor fully attempted in good faith to remove the outstanding violation on the property in accordance with the provision of the contract. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscelle, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 834, 355 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-vietri-nyappdiv-1974.