Orenstein v. Barbaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orenstein v. Barbaro

78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 694 (Orenstein v. Barbaro) 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

Orenstein v. Barbaro, 78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 8, 1980, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom all but the third decretal paragraph thereof and defendant’s motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record before us indicates that there are triable issues of fact regarding a waiver of strict compliance with the terms of the option agreement. Thus, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied and defendant’s motion for the same relief should have been denied as well. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 8, 1980, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom all but the third decretal paragraph thereof and defendant’s motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record before us indicates that there are triable issues of fact regarding a waiver of strict compliance with the terms of the option agreement. Thus, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied and defendant’s motion for the same relief should have been denied as well. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 694, 434 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orenstein-v-barbaro-nyappdiv-1980.