Grace v. Ortenzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grace v. Ortenzio

201 A.D.2d 390, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 390 (Grace v. Ortenzio) 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

Grace v. Ortenzio, 201 A.D.2d 390, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 30, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought to recover a down payment on a cancelled contract for the sale of real property, and which denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his counterclaims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the contentions of both parties, the court properly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff fulfilled a condition of the contract requiring him to make a good faith effort to obtain a permit from the building department to convert the premises to exclusive medical use, and thus appropriately denied summary judgment on both the motion and cross-motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 30, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought to recover a down payment on a cancelled contract for the sale of real property, and which denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his counterclaims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the contentions of both parties, the court properly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff fulfilled a condition of the contract requiring him to make a good faith effort to obtain a permit from the building department to convert the premises to exclusive medical use, and thus appropriately denied summary judgment on both the motion and cross-motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 390, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grace-v-ortenzio-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack