Kim v. Feinman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kim v. Feinman

134 A.D.2d 750, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50929

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 750 (Kim v. Feinman) 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

Kim v. Feinman, 134 A.D.2d 750, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered January 27, 1987 in Albany County, which, inter alia, directed defendant Ruth Feinman to convey certain real property to plaintiffs and enjoined defendant Ruth Feinman from exercising any ownership rights regarding the property.

Supreme Court properly found that a memorandum agreement executed March 10, 1980 between plaintiffs, as purchasers, and defendants David Feinman and Ruth Feinman, as sellers, constituted an amendment which eliminated the option provision and/or waived such provision contained in prior agreements ° between the parties relating to the sale and purchase of certain premises. Supreme Court’s order and judgment should be affirmed.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered January 27, 1987 in Albany County, which, inter alia, directed defendant Ruth Feinman to convey certain real property to plaintiffs and enjoined defendant Ruth Feinman from exercising any ownership rights regarding the property.

Supreme Court properly found that a memorandum agreement executed March 10, 1980 between plaintiffs, as purchasers, and defendants David Feinman and Ruth Feinman, as sellers, constituted an amendment which eliminated the option provision and/or waived such provision contained in prior agreements ° between the parties relating to the sale and purchase of certain premises. Supreme Court’s order and judgment should be affirmed.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 750, 521 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kim-v-feinman-nyappdiv-1987.