Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 377 (Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Avenue Corp.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 377, 707 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoo-corp-v-109-graham-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack