Hall v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. Craig

60 A.D.2d 833, 400 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 833 (Hall v. Craig) 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

Hall v. Craig, 60 A.D.2d 833, 400 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance to compel defendant to take delivery of certain shares of stock, and to direct the payment therefor, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 19, 1977, which (1) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 1) and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying the said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was improperly granted. In our opinion, triable issues of fact have been presented. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance to compel defendant to take delivery of certain shares of stock, and to direct the payment therefor, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 19, 1977, which (1) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 1) and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified by deleting so much thereof as granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying the said motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was improperly granted. In our opinion, triable issues of fact have been presented. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 833, 400 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-craig-nyappdiv-1978.