Nikolis v. Reznick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nikolis v. Reznick

156 A.D.2d 352, 548 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15481

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 352 (Nikolis v. Reznick) 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

Nikolis v. Reznick, 156 A.D.2d 352, 548 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated May 6, 1988, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record reveals that there are material issues of fact including, inter alia, whether the limitation of liability clause in the contract at issue applies because the defendant failed to act in good faith to perform their duties under the contract (see, Mancini-CioLo v Scaramellino, 118 AD2d 761, 762; CPLR 3212 [b]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 to sell real property, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated May 6, 1988, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record reveals that there are material issues of fact including, inter alia, whether the limitation of liability clause in the contract at issue applies because the defendant failed to act in good faith to perform their duties under the contract (see, Mancini-CioLo v Scaramellino, 118 AD2d 761, 762; CPLR 3212 [b]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 352, 548 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikolis-v-reznick-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack