Levine v. Feldmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Feldmann

47 A.D.3d 686, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 686 (Levine v. Feldmann) 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

Levine v. Feldmann, 47 A.D.3d 686, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered July 25, 2006, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract and, in opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered July 25, 2006, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract and, in opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 686, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-feldmann-nyappdiv-2008.