Freidus v. Todem Homes, Inc.

434 N.E.2d 1341, 56 N.Y.2d 526, 449 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3212
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 23, 1982·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division so far as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in that court’s memorandum decision. We add only that the Appellate Division did not exceed its powers when its order stated that “it is determined that Todem Homes, Inc., has the right to specific performance of the option agreement dated June 10, 1969”. Although not an order granting specific performance in the earlier action, we take this “determination” as a necessary predicate to deciding the question of ownership of the property in dispute.

[529]*529Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Freidus v. Todem Homes, Inc., 434 N.E.2d 1341, 56 N.Y.2d 526, 449 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3212 (N.Y. 1982).

434 N.E.2d 1341 (Freidus v. Todem Homes, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gardner v. Jacon
148 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Freidus v. Eisenberg
123 A.D.2d 174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.
460 N.E.2d 1077 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Ferguson v. Ferguson
97 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)