Goodman v. Finkelstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodman v. Finkelstein

275 A.D.2d 949

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

DecidedJune 13, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 949 (Goodman v. Finkelstein) 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

Goodman v. Finkelstein, 275 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The finding of the commission on the issue of good faith was an unwarranted exercise of discretion. The determinations of the commission in the only orders made (and those are the only ones subject to review) that respondents failed to establish payment in cash to the seller of 20% of the purchase price, is based on the undisputed and conceded proof. The subsequent reductions of the mortgage in this case cannot be deemed to be part of the cash down payment. (Matter of Brown v. Finkelstein, 275 App. Div. 772.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

The finding of the commission on the issue of good faith was an unwarranted exercise of discretion. The determinations of the commission in the only orders made (and those are the only ones subject to review) that respondents failed to establish payment in cash to the seller of 20% of the purchase price, is based on the undisputed and conceded proof. The subsequent reductions of the mortgage in this case cannot be deemed to be part of the cash down payment. (Matter of Brown v. Finkelstein, 275 App. Div. 772.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-finkelstein-nyappdiv-1949.