Guss v. Sibarco Stations, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guss v. Sibarco Stations, Inc.

43 A.D.2d 833, 350 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 833 (Guss v. Sibarco Stations, 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

Guss v. Sibarco Stations, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 833, 350 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendor to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell real property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 18, 1972, in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion it was error, under the facts of this case, for the trial court, after request by defendant’s counsel, to fail to charge the jury that it could consider the issuance of the permit for a gasoline service station on the issue of fair market value on the day of the breach. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendor to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell real property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 18, 1972, in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion it was error, under the facts of this case, for the trial court, after request by defendant’s counsel, to fail to charge the jury that it could consider the issuance of the permit for a gasoline service station on the issue of fair market value on the day of the breach. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 833, 350 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guss-v-sibarco-stations-inc-nyappdiv-1974.