Jordanidow v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jordanidow v. Thomas

302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1718

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 296 (Jordanidow v. Thomas) 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

Jordanidow v. Thomas, 302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 20, 2001, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly interpreted the parties’ agreement, and the powers of attorney contained therein, as giving plaintiff the option of transferring defendants’ property to herself or a third party in the event defendants did not sell the properties by the specified dates, but imposing upon plaintiff no obligation to do so. The agreement clearly contemplated that plaintiff could continue to look to the property as security for as long as defendants’ indebtedness remained unsatisfied, and that plaintiff’s powers of attorney to sell the properties would be deemed revoked if the indebtedness were satisfied by other means. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other contentions. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 20, 2001, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly interpreted the parties’ agreement, and the powers of attorney contained therein, as giving plaintiff the option of transferring defendants’ property to herself or a third party in the event defendants did not sell the properties by the specified dates, but imposing upon plaintiff no obligation to do so. The agreement clearly contemplated that plaintiff could continue to look to the property as security for as long as defendants’ indebtedness remained unsatisfied, and that plaintiff’s powers of attorney to sell the properties would be deemed revoked if the indebtedness were satisfied by other means. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other contentions. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordanidow-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2003.