Nisofsky v. Simon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nisofsky v. Simon

280 A.D. 874, 113 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 874 (Nisofsky v. Simon) 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

Nisofsky v. Simon, 280 A.D. 874, 113 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action wherein the plaintiff seeks reformation of a receipt, alleged to have been delivered to him by the defendant, so that the receipt shall contain the terms of an alleged oral agreement for the purchase and sale of real property, and to obtain specific performance of the agreement, the defendant has pleaded the Statute of Frauds as defenses. Defendant appeals from an order which denied her motion for judgment on the pleadings. Order affirmed, without costs. The complaint states a cause of action at least for the return of the moneys paid by the plaintiff and cannot therefore be dismissed. (Saperstein v. Mechanics é Farmers Sav. Bank, 228 N. Y. 257.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action wherein the plaintiff seeks reformation of a receipt, alleged to have been delivered to him by the defendant, so that the receipt shall contain the terms of an alleged oral agreement for the purchase and sale of real property, and to obtain specific performance of the agreement, the defendant has pleaded the Statute of Frauds as defenses. Defendant appeals from an order which denied her motion for judgment on the pleadings. Order affirmed, without costs. The complaint states a cause of action at least for the return of the moneys paid by the plaintiff and cannot therefore be dismissed. (Saperstein v. Mechanics é Farmers Sav. Bank, 228 N. Y. 257.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 874, 113 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nisofsky-v-simon-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack