J. R. Construction Corp. v. Berkeley Apts., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. R. Construction Corp. v. Berkeley Apts., Inc.

259 A.D. 830, 19 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884

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

DecidedApril 8, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 830 (J. R. Construction Corp. v. Berkeley Apts., Inc.) 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

J. R. Construction Corp. v. Berkeley Apts., Inc., 259 A.D. 830, 19 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to recover moneys claimed to be due under certain building contracts, in which defendant set up a defense and' counterclaim of duress, judgment in so far as it dismisses the complaint and awards costs to defendant, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence of duress was insufficient to warrant the submission of the issue to the jury, because of the absence of proof that defendant did not have an adequate legal remedy. (Doyle v. Rector, etc., Trinity Church, 133 N. Y. 372.) Even if there were such proof, the present record indicates that defendant ratified the disputed agreements. (Abelman v. Indelli & Conforti Co., 170 App. Div. 740.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to recover moneys claimed to be due under certain building contracts, in which defendant set up a defense and' counterclaim of duress, judgment in so far as it dismisses the complaint and awards costs to defendant, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence of duress was insufficient to warrant the submission of the issue to the jury, because of the absence of proof that defendant did not have an adequate legal remedy. (Doyle v. Rector, etc., Trinity Church, 133 N. Y. 372.) Even if there were such proof, the present record indicates that defendant ratified the disputed agreements. (Abelman v. Indelli & Conforti Co., 170 App. Div. 740.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 830, 19 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-r-construction-corp-v-berkeley-apts-inc-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack