McLaurin v. Hager Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLaurin v. Hager Realty Corp.

33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3013

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 550 (McLaurin v. Hager Realty 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

McLaurin v. Hager Realty Corp., 33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 14,1967, and judgment entered thereon October 11, 1967, as appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of .vacating the dismissal of the first cause of action of the complaint herein with respect to defendants Hager Realty Corp. and 200 East 34th Street Management Corp;, and reinstating the same. As so modified the order and judgment are otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. We have held in a companion case involving the same parties that dismissal of the action by this plaintiff and others for specific performance was not res judicata “ as to the right, if any, of the plaintiffs to recover back the down payment” (Freedom Enterprises v. Hager Realty Corp., 32 A D 2d 899). Accordingly, the dismissal at Special Term on that ground cannot stand. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Tilzer,. Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered September 14,1967, and judgment entered thereon October 11, 1967, as appealed from, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of .vacating the dismissal of the first cause of action of the complaint herein with respect to defendants Hager Realty Corp. and 200 East 34th Street Management Corp;, and reinstating the same. As so modified the order and judgment are otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. We have held in a companion case involving the same parties that dismissal of the action by this plaintiff and others for specific performance was not res judicata “ as to the right, if any, of the plaintiffs to recover back the down payment” (Freedom Enterprises v. Hager Realty Corp., 32 A D 2d 899). Accordingly, the dismissal at Special Term on that ground cannot stand. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Tilzer,. Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 550, 304 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaurin-v-hager-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1969.