Greven v. Muir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greven v. Muir

128 A.D.2d 753, 513 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44438

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 753 (Greven v. Muir) 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

Greven v. Muir, 128 A.D.2d 753, 513 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated August 8, 1985, which denied his motions to cancel a notice of pendency filed against the [754]*754subject property, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are granted, the notice of pendency filed against the subject property is hereby discharged and canceled, summary judgment is granted to the defendant, and the complaint is dismissed.

Because the plaintiffs, in a prior action, had asserted that the contract between them and the defendant had been canceled, they are bound by their first choice, and may not now, in a separate action, claim that the contract was still valid and seek specific performance thereof (see, Whalen v Stuart, 194 NY 495, 505, rearg denied 195 NY 524; Matter of Garver, 176 NY 386, 394; Terry v Munger, 121 NY 161, 167). As the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the notice of pendency filed in this action is hereby discharged and canceled of record (see, CPLR 6514 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated August 8, 1985, which denied his motions to cancel a notice of pendency filed against the [754]*754subject property, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are granted, the notice of pendency filed against the subject property is hereby discharged and canceled, summary judgment is granted to the defendant, and the complaint is dismissed.

Because the plaintiffs, in a prior action, had asserted that the contract between them and the defendant had been canceled, they are bound by their first choice, and may not now, in a separate action, claim that the contract was still valid and seek specific performance thereof (see, Whalen v Stuart, 194 NY 495, 505, rearg denied 195 NY 524; Matter of Garver, 176 NY 386, 394; Terry v Munger, 121 NY 161, 167). As the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the notice of pendency filed in this action is hereby discharged and canceled of record (see, CPLR 6514 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 753, 513 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greven-v-muir-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack