Mario D. Giardino, Inc. v. Blind Brook Apartment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mario D. Giardino, Inc. v. Blind Brook Apartment Corp.

282 A.D. 1062, 126 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5824

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1062 (Mario D. Giardino, Inc. v. Blind Brook Apartment Corp.) 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

Mario D. Giardino, Inc. v. Blind Brook Apartment Corp., 282 A.D. 1062, 126 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

On August 7, 1952, plaintiff’s assignor contracted to buy, and defendant to sell, a vacant parcel of land in the village of Hempstead. The contract contained the usual clause requiring the seller to comply with “All notes or notices of violations of law or municipal ordinances, orders or requirements noted in or issued by the * * * Municipal Department having jurisdiction, against or affecting the premises at the date hereof ”. On August 7,1952, the village filed an order requiring the defendant to install curbs, gutters, concrete walks, and miscellaneous items in, upon and around the premises. The work was subsequently done by the village and plaintiff’s property was assessed for $928.11, for which sum plaintiff demands judgment. The seller moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency on the ground that the clause in question required it to comply not with orders of, but only with violations of orders of, municipal departments, and further that the order was an assessment for improvements, which did not become a lien until filed, which was after the deed was delivered. The motion was denied and defendant appeals. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

On August 7, 1952, plaintiff’s assignor contracted to buy, and defendant to sell, a vacant parcel of land in the village of Hempstead. The contract contained the usual clause requiring the seller to comply with “All notes or notices of violations of law or municipal ordinances, orders or requirements noted in or issued by the * * * Municipal Department having jurisdiction, against or affecting the premises at the date hereof ”. On August 7,1952, the village filed an order requiring the defendant to install curbs, gutters, concrete walks, and miscellaneous items in, upon and around the premises. The work was subsequently done by the village and plaintiff’s property was assessed for $928.11, for which sum plaintiff demands judgment. The seller moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency on the ground that the clause in question required it to comply not with orders of, but only with violations of orders of, municipal departments, and further that the order was an assessment for improvements, which did not become a lien until filed, which was after the deed was delivered. The motion was denied and defendant appeals. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1062, 126 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-d-giardino-inc-v-blind-brook-apartment-corp-nyappdiv-1953.