Iron Ox Center v. Jurka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iron Ox Center v. Jurka

76 A.D.2d 671, 906 N.Y.S.2d 509

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 671 (Iron Ox Center v. Jurka) 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

Iron Ox Center v. Jurka, 76 A.D.2d 671, 906 N.Y.S.2d 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered July 14, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are triable issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment to both parties (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Skelos, J.E, Hall, Roman and Sgroi, 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 a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered July 14, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are triable issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment to both parties (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Skelos, J.E, Hall, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 671, 906 N.Y.S.2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iron-ox-center-v-jurka-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack