In re Falek Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Falek Construction Corp.

236 A.D. 808

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 808 (In re Falek Construction 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

In re Falek Construction Corp., 236 A.D. 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, Mr. Finkel was not acting as an attorney in the matter referred to. Even if he be so regarded we think the Special Term improperly exercised its discretion in granting this application. There is considerable doubt whether or not the parties intended that the documents in question should be delivered solely upon the production of a certificate of occupancy, irrespective of the performance by the respondent of its contract. Non-performance by it is alleged by the appellants and not denied by the respondent, the latter standing solely upon the language of the so-called escrow agreement. Under the circumstances, therefore, the questions presented here should not be determined upon a summary application of this character,' but in an action between the parties where the truth can be ascertained from the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, Mr. Finkel was not acting as an attorney in the matter referred to. Even if he be so regarded we think the Special Term improperly exercised its discretion in granting this application. There is considerable doubt whether or not the parties intended that the documents in question should be delivered solely upon the production of a certificate of occupancy, irrespective of the performance by the respondent of its contract. Non-performance by it is alleged by the appellants and not denied by the respondent, the latter standing solely upon the language of the so-called escrow agreement. Under the circumstances, therefore, the questions presented here should not be determined upon a summary application of this character,' but in an action between the parties where the truth can be ascertained from the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-falek-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1932.