Haggerty v. Gluck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. Gluck

33 A.D.2d 791, 307 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 791 (Haggerty v. Gluck) 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

Haggerty v. Gluck, 33 A.D.2d 791, 307 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property and for money damages, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings County, dated February 21, 1969, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) the judgment of said court, entered February 24, 1969 upon said order, in favor of defendants. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion denied. In our opinion the affidavits and exhibits submitted raised issues requiring a plenary trial as to the reasonableness of the notice fixing the law date (cf. Drago v. Flewellin, 33 A D 2d 570). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property and for money damages, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings County, dated February 21, 1969, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) the judgment of said court, entered February 24, 1969 upon said order, in favor of defendants. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion denied. In our opinion the affidavits and exhibits submitted raised issues requiring a plenary trial as to the reasonableness of the notice fixing the law date (cf. Drago v. Flewellin, 33 A D 2d 570). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 791, 307 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggerty-v-gluck-nyappdiv-1969.