Kosky v. Borowko

224 A.D. 764
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1928·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order denying motion to dismiss complaint and cancel lis pendens reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The action is for the specific performance of a contract whereby respondent agreed to convey to appellants certain real property in exchange for other real property of the appellants. Since the commencement of the action the respondent disposed of the real property which he had so contracted to convey to appellants. By this conveyance respondent has placed himself in such position that he cannot now comply with the terms of the contract which he seeks in this action specifically to enforce. He must- for that reason be considered to have abandoned the contract. It is inequitable to enforce a contract at the instance of a party who has voluntarily placed himself in such position that he himself cannot comply with it. Kapper, Seeger and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that there is no proof that the property is beyond respondent’s control and that he cannot be vested with the title for the purpose of carrying out his contract when the case is reached for trial.

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

Kosky v. Borowko, 224 A.D. 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

224 A.D. 764 (Kosky v. Borowko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dean v. Sneed
392 So. 2d 1169 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1981)
Carlton Properties Inc. v. Bloom
14 Misc. 2d 666 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Knight v. Carter
1 Misc. 2d 351 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Price v. Kline
278 A.D. 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)