Gordon v. Starrett City, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordon v. Starrett City, Inc.

83 A.D.2d 623, 441 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14915

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 623 (Gordon v. Starrett City, Inc.) 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

Gordon v. Starrett City, Inc., 83 A.D.2d 623, 441 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Paola, J.), dated January 6, 1981, which denied their motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed. There was no inherent contradiction between paragraphs 13 and 18 of the contract. The effect of these paragraphs was that plaintiff agreed to commence performance of its obligations even though the contract was ultimately subject to approval by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Plaintiff’s initiatory performance (which involved a comparatively modest expenditure of money and services) was therefore pursuant to the written contract, and not such as was unequivocally referable to an alleged modification thereof (cf. Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338, 341). Further, the facts alleged by plaintiff in his opposing affidavits and accompanying exhibits created no issue of bad faith. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Paola, J.), dated January 6, 1981, which denied their motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed. There was no inherent contradiction between paragraphs 13 and 18 of the contract. The effect of these paragraphs was that plaintiff agreed to commence performance of its obligations even though the contract was ultimately subject to approval by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Plaintiff’s initiatory performance (which involved a comparatively modest expenditure of money and services) was therefore pursuant to the written contract, and not such as was unequivocally referable to an alleged modification thereof (cf. Rose v Spa Realty Assoc., 42 NY2d 338, 341). Further, the facts alleged by plaintiff in his opposing affidavits and accompanying exhibits created no issue of bad faith. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 623, 441 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-starrett-city-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack