Kowalski v. Familia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kowalski v. Familia

43 A.D.2d 943, 351 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5820

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 943 (Kowalski v. Familia) 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

Kowalski v. Familia, 43 A.D.2d 943, 351 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, by the heir of an owner of an alleged option to purchase real property, for specific performance, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered December 8, 1972, which, (1) upon defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and for a declaratory judgment, adjudged that the alleged option was void and (2) denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the defenses contained in defendants’ answer and for summary judgment. Order modified by adding thereto a provision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. In our opinion, the order under review should have conformed to Special Term’s decision, which hot only denied plaintiff’s cross motion but granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur. [71 Misc 2d 287.]

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

In an action, by the heir of an owner of an alleged option to purchase real property, for specific performance, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered December 8, 1972, which, (1) upon defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and for a declaratory judgment, adjudged that the alleged option was void and (2) denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the defenses contained in defendants’ answer and for summary judgment. Order modified by adding thereto a provision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. In our opinion, the order under review should have conformed to Special Term’s decision, which hot only denied plaintiff’s cross motion but granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 7). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur. [71 Misc 2d 287.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 943, 351 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-v-familia-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack