Garret v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garret v. Bernstein

261 A.D. 832, 24 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7663

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 832 (Garret v. Bernstein) 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

Garret v. Bernstein, 261 A.D. 832, 24 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellants’ motion under rule 107, Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground (1) that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) that the contract sued upon is not enforeible under the Statute of Frauds, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to appellants to serve an answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The action may be maintained to compel the delivery of one-third of the shares of stock of Roseburns Homes Co., Inc., and to account for the value and profits thereof. The action is not maintainable to compel the conveyance of interests in the so-called Queens and 2724 Pitkin Avenue properties to the plaintiff, because it appears on the face of the complaint that such properties had been conveyed before the agreement of September 30, 1930, was entered into, and that, in any event, the agreement which, concededly, was oral is unenforeible. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying appellants’ motion under rule 107, Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground (1) that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and (2) that the contract sued upon is not enforeible under the Statute of Frauds, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to appellants to serve an answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The action may be maintained to compel the delivery of one-third of the shares of stock of Roseburns Homes Co., Inc., and to account for the value and profits thereof. The action is not maintainable to compel the conveyance of interests in the so-called Queens and 2724 Pitkin Avenue properties to the plaintiff, because it appears on the face of the complaint that such properties had been conveyed before the agreement of September 30, 1930, was entered into, and that, in any event, the agreement which, concededly, was oral is unenforeible. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 832, 24 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garret-v-bernstein-nyappdiv-1941.