Nesdale v. Banister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nesdale v. Banister

18 A.D.3d 841, 795 N.Y.S.2d 458

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 841 (Nesdale v. Banister) 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

Nesdale v. Banister, 18 A.D.3d 841, 795 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 13, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and for summary judgment in his favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant seller lawfully exercised his right to cancel the contract of sale pursuant to cancellation clauses inserted in the contract for the seller’s benefit or for the benefit of both parties (see W.W.W. Assoc, v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 13, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and for summary judgment in his favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant seller lawfully exercised his right to cancel the contract of sale pursuant to cancellation clauses inserted in the contract for the seller’s benefit or for the benefit of both parties (see W.W.W. Assoc, v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 841, 795 N.Y.S.2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesdale-v-banister-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack