Haberman v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haberman v. Wright

141 A.D.2d 427, 529 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6925

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

DecidedJune 23, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 427 (Haberman v. Wright) 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

Haberman v. Wright, 141 A.D.2d 427, 529 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Ciparick, J.), entered November 18, 1987, which judgment was based upon a decision rendered by the late Justice Amos Bowman, filed January 8, 1987, and which judgment, inter alia, granted to plaintiff rescission of a lease agreement on the grounds of fraud, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the award of $4,000 with interest for plaintiff’s alleged expenditures in making the premises suitable for professional occupancy, and otherwise affirmed without costs. There was no adequate proof of the reasonable value of the work performed.

We have reviewed the other contentions of the parties and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Ciparick, J.), entered November 18, 1987, which judgment was based upon a decision rendered by the late Justice Amos Bowman, filed January 8, 1987, and which judgment, inter alia, granted to plaintiff rescission of a lease agreement on the grounds of fraud, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the award of $4,000 with interest for plaintiff’s alleged expenditures in making the premises suitable for professional occupancy, and otherwise affirmed without costs. There was no adequate proof of the reasonable value of the work performed.

We have reviewed the other contentions of the parties and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 427, 529 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haberman-v-wright-nyappdiv-1988.