Handy v. Manganelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handy v. Manganelli

181 A.D.2d 658, 581 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3011

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 658 (Handy v. Manganelli) 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

Handy v. Manganelli, 181 A.D.2d 658, 581 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of an option, contained in a lease, to purchase the demised premises, the plaintiff appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeMatteo, J.H.O.), dated August 31, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We find that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s action for specific performance since he waived his option to purchase the premises. Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property (see, Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 96 AD2d 526, affd 60 NY2d 997).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Fiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for specific performance of an option, contained in a lease, to purchase the demised premises, the plaintiff appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeMatteo, J.H.O.), dated August 31, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We find that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s action for specific performance since he waived his option to purchase the premises. Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property (see, Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 96 AD2d 526, affd 60 NY2d 997).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Fiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 658, 581 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-manganelli-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack