Guinn v. Kurland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guinn v. Kurland

1 A.D.2d 787, 148 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 787 (Guinn v. Kurland) 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

Guinn v. Kurland, 1 A.D.2d 787, 148 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the alleged breach, by the vendee, of a contract to purchase real property, the appeal is from that part of a judgment which dismissed the complaint, after trial. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the writing was merely a note or memorandum of a contract, and evidence was, therefore, admissible [788]*788to show that the memorandum was incomplete. (Mesibov, Glinert & Levy v. Cohen Bros. Mfg. Co., 245 N. Y. 305, 313.) Special Term was justified in holding that the memorandum was incomplete with respect to the question of possession of the first-floor apartment, which was a material element in this transaction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for the alleged breach, by the vendee, of a contract to purchase real property, the appeal is from that part of a judgment which dismissed the complaint, after trial. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the writing was merely a note or memorandum of a contract, and evidence was, therefore, admissible [788]*788to show that the memorandum was incomplete. (Mesibov, Glinert & Levy v. Cohen Bros. Mfg. Co., 245 N. Y. 305, 313.) Special Term was justified in holding that the memorandum was incomplete with respect to the question of possession of the first-floor apartment, which was a material element in this transaction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 787, 148 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guinn-v-kurland-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack