Moral Six Corp. v. Margold Associates Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moral Six Corp. v. Margold Associates Co.

79 A.D.2d 702, 434 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14094

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 702 (Moral Six Corp. v. Margold Associates Co.) 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

Moral Six Corp. v. Margold Associates Co., 79 A.D.2d 702, 434 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of land, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered September 25, 1979, which -denied their motion for partial summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion granted and matter remanded to Special Term for an assessment of damages as to the third cause of action. The findings of fact by Special Term that defendants were aware of the existence of a violation when the contract was executed and nevertheless represented that there were no violations, and that the subject violation has not been corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Department of the Town of Blooming Grove, are supported by the record. Evidence that defendants reasonably believed the violation to have been corrected is insufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (see Brisbane v Parsons, 33 NY 332). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of land, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered September 25, 1979, which -denied their motion for partial summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion granted and matter remanded to Special Term for an assessment of damages as to the third cause of action. The findings of fact by Special Term that defendants were aware of the existence of a violation when the contract was executed and nevertheless represented that there were no violations, and that the subject violation has not been corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Department of the Town of Blooming Grove, are supported by the record. Evidence that defendants reasonably believed the violation to have been corrected is insufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (see Brisbane v Parsons, 33 NY 332). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 702, 434 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moral-six-corp-v-margold-associates-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack