Lerand Corp. v. Meltzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lerand Corp. v. Meltzer

242 A.D. 844

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 844 (Lerand Corp. v. Meltzer) 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

Lerand Corp. v. Meltzer, 242 A.D. 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits in an action for specific performance of an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of real property reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment unanimously directed for plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made in conformity herewith. In our opinion, the receipt or memorandum of the contract of sale was sufficient within the Statute of Frauds. (Irvmor Corp. v. Bodewald, 253 N. Y. 472; Dykers v. Townsend, 24 id. 57; Langstroth v. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 162 App. Div. 818; affd., 220 N. Y. 706.) The findings of the trial court that the size of the lot was misrepresented and that the check was only delivered conditionally are contrary to the weight of evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits in an action for specific performance of an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of real property reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment unanimously directed for plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, with costs. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made in conformity herewith. In our opinion, the receipt or memorandum of the contract of sale was sufficient within the Statute of Frauds. (Irvmor Corp. v. Bodewald, 253 N. Y. 472; Dykers v. Townsend, 24 id. 57; Langstroth v. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 162 App. Div. 818; affd., 220 N. Y. 706.) The findings of the trial court that the size of the lot was misrepresented and that the check was only delivered conditionally are contrary to the weight of evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lerand-corp-v-meltzer-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack