Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp.

272 A.D.2d 377, 707 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated May 6, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding the plaintiff relief which, although not demanded in its complaint, was requested in its motion and was appropriate in light of the proof submitted (see, CPLR 3017 [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp., 272 A.D.2d 377, 707 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

272 A.D.2d 377 (Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Verruso v. Bourget's Bike Works, Inc.
67 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bichay v. Orienta Beach Club
5 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp.
288 A.D.2d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)