Frankel v. Caspi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frankel v. Caspi

159 A.D.2d 680, 553 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 680 (Frankel v. Caspi) 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

Frankel v. Caspi, 159 A.D.2d 680, 553 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a down payment for the purchase of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated February 10, 1989, as denied his motion for summary judgment and discharged his notice of pendency, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Because of the factual questions surrounding the capacity and willingness of each of the parties to. close title, we agree with the Supreme Court that summary judgment is inappropriate for either side.

At oral argument, the court was informed that the premises had been sold to a third party, and that the down payment is being held in escrow by the seller’s attorney. Under the circumstances, a notice of pendency is unnecessary. Brown, J. P., Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a down payment for the purchase of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated February 10, 1989, as denied his motion for summary judgment and discharged his notice of pendency, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Because of the factual questions surrounding the capacity and willingness of each of the parties to. close title, we agree with the Supreme Court that summary judgment is inappropriate for either side.

At oral argument, the court was informed that the premises had been sold to a third party, and that the down payment is being held in escrow by the seller’s attorney. Under the circumstances, a notice of pendency is unnecessary. Brown, J. P., Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 680, 553 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-caspi-nyappdiv-1990.