MacDonald v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacDonald v. Goldstein

45 A.D.2d 984, 359 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 984 (MacDonald v. Goldstein) 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

MacDonald v. Goldstein, 45 A.D.2d 984, 359 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. Memorandum: The record amply supports the judgment granted plaintiffs for defendants’ [985]*985breach of contract to purchase plaintiffs’ property. However, the court’s memorandum makes no reference to the counterclaim for $2,500 which represented the deposit paid by defendants upon the execution of the purchase offer. The only reference to it was in the court’s refusal to find, as requested by defendants, that “ The defendants Goldstein demanded return of the deposit paid by them in the sum of $2,500 ”. It is clear that the court intended to dismiss the counterclaim, as the evidence demonstrates that he should have, for the proof of plaintiffs’ damages fully supports the retention of the deposit and the $8,500, with interest, contained in the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in action on real estate contract.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Goldman and Del Yeechio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. Memorandum: The record amply supports the judgment granted plaintiffs for defendants’ [985]*985breach of contract to purchase plaintiffs’ property. However, the court’s memorandum makes no reference to the counterclaim for $2,500 which represented the deposit paid by defendants upon the execution of the purchase offer. The only reference to it was in the court’s refusal to find, as requested by defendants, that “ The defendants Goldstein demanded return of the deposit paid by them in the sum of $2,500 ”. It is clear that the court intended to dismiss the counterclaim, as the evidence demonstrates that he should have, for the proof of plaintiffs’ damages fully supports the retention of the deposit and the $8,500, with interest, contained in the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in action on real estate contract.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Goldman and Del Yeechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 984, 359 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1974.