Fisher v. Vietri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Vietri

55 A.D.2d 904, 390 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10142

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 904 (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, 55 A.D.2d 904, 390 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel defendant to execute a deed conveying title to certain premises pursuant to a written agreement, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 11, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, directed him "to specifically perform the [905]*905agreement”. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court correctly concluded that, notwithstanding the existence of certain violations against the premises, defendant was able to convey title in accordance with the terms of the agreement and that he had failed to take all steps reasonably necessary to remove the violations. The findings preclude defendant from obtaining rescission of the agreement under its exculpatory clause. We have examined defendant’s alternative arguments concerning the propriety of the abatement and the correctness of the amount thereof, and find them to be without merit. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to compel defendant to execute a deed conveying title to certain premises pursuant to a written agreement, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 11, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, directed him "to specifically perform the [905]*905agreement”. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court correctly concluded that, notwithstanding the existence of certain violations against the premises, defendant was able to convey title in accordance with the terms of the agreement and that he had failed to take all steps reasonably necessary to remove the violations. The findings preclude defendant from obtaining rescission of the agreement under its exculpatory clause. We have examined defendant’s alternative arguments concerning the propriety of the abatement and the correctness of the amount thereof, and find them to be without merit. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 904, 390 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-vietri-nyappdiv-1977.