Garone v. Morabito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garone v. Morabito

82 A.D.3d 833, 918 N.Y.2d 366

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

For the reasons set forth in the decision and order in the companion appeal (see Cartalemi v Garone, 82 AD3d 819 [2011] [decided herewith]), the order is affirmed.

Since the counterclaims sought declaratory relief, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of an interlocutory judgment declaring that the plaintiffs rights in the option were not time-barred and that the option and the contract of sale are valid and enforceable against the appellants (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

For the reasons set forth in the decision and order in the companion appeal (see Cartalemi v Garone, 82 AD3d 819 [2011] [decided herewith]), the order is affirmed.

Since the counterclaims sought declaratory relief, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of an interlocutory judgment declaring that the plaintiffs rights in the option were not time-barred and that the option and the contract of sale are valid and enforceable against the appellants (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Garone v. Morabito, 82 A.D.3d 833, 918 N.Y.2d 366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 833 (Garone v. Morabito) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related