Lawler v. Clinton Street Development Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawler v. Clinton Street Development Properties, Inc.

72 A.D.2d 965, 422 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14785

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 965 (Lawler v. Clinton Street Development Properties, 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

Lawler v. Clinton Street Development Properties, Inc., 72 A.D.2d 965, 422 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his complaint on the authority of Lawler v Clinton St. Dev. Props. (63 AD2d 827), the decision affirming dismissal of a prior complaint between the same parties. The prior complaint in a declaratory judgment action sought a declaration that the contract was in full force and effect, an order enjoining the defendants from selling, leasing or otherwise [966]*966disposing of the property, and specific performance of the contract. In affirming, we stated (pp 827-828) that: "There was no showing of any necessity for such relief or that plaintiffs contractual rights, if any, could not be fully adjudicated in an action at law (CPLR 3001; see Walsh v Andorn, 33 NY2d 503, 507; James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298, 305; Seaboard Sur. Co. v Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 42 Mise 2d 435, 436).” The gravamen of the instant complaint is the same as the prior complaint. The relief demanded includes a declaration that the same contract is in full force and effect and specific performance thereof. Special Term properly dismissed the complaint with leave to plaintiff to assert whatever contractual rights he might have in the appropriate action at law. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court&emdash;dismiss complaint.) Present&emdash;Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his complaint on the authority of Lawler v Clinton St. Dev. Props. (63 AD2d 827), the decision affirming dismissal of a prior complaint between the same parties. The prior complaint in a declaratory judgment action sought a declaration that the contract was in full force and effect, an order enjoining the defendants from selling, leasing or otherwise [966]*966disposing of the property, and specific performance of the contract. In affirming, we stated (pp 827-828) that: "There was no showing of any necessity for such relief or that plaintiffs contractual rights, if any, could not be fully adjudicated in an action at law (CPLR 3001; see Walsh v Andorn, 33 NY2d 503, 507; James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298, 305; Seaboard Sur. Co. v Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 42 Mise 2d 435, 436).” The gravamen of the instant complaint is the same as the prior complaint. The relief demanded includes a declaration that the same contract is in full force and effect and specific performance thereof. Special Term properly dismissed the complaint with leave to plaintiff to assert whatever contractual rights he might have in the appropriate action at law. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court&emdash;dismiss complaint.) Present&emdash;Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 965, 422 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawler-v-clinton-street-development-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack