Najjar v. Lefkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Najjar v. Lefkowitz

266 A.D.2d 31, 697 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11371

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 31 (Najjar v. Lefkowitz) 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

Najjar v. Lefkowitz, 266 A.D.2d 31, 697 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 13, 1999, after a nonjury trial, in favor of defendant buyer and against plaintiff seller on their respective claims for declaratory and money relief with respect to a contract for the sale of certain contract rights to real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The correspondence between plaintiff and another prospective buyer of the subject contract rights is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the representations made by plaintiff in the parties’ agreement, that he had no “agreements, [32]*32contracts or understandings (verbal or written) with any person, firm or entity affecting the Property”, were misleading, and, as such, constituted grounds for defendant to cancel the agreement. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 13, 1999, after a nonjury trial, in favor of defendant buyer and against plaintiff seller on their respective claims for declaratory and money relief with respect to a contract for the sale of certain contract rights to real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The correspondence between plaintiff and another prospective buyer of the subject contract rights is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the representations made by plaintiff in the parties’ agreement, that he had no “agreements, [32]*32contracts or understandings (verbal or written) with any person, firm or entity affecting the Property”, were misleading, and, as such, constituted grounds for defendant to cancel the agreement. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 31, 697 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najjar-v-lefkowitz-nyappdiv-1999.