Parlato v. Brinkman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parlato v. Brinkman

279 A.D. 621, 107 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D. 621 (Parlato v. Brinkman) 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

Parlato v. Brinkman, 279 A.D. 621, 107 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The terms on which the seller listed the property for sale with the plaintiffs were not accepted by the proposed purchaser. The seller was not obliged to accept any different terms or to negotiate on any new terms. All concur, Me Cum and Vaughan, JJ., in result only, in the following memorandum: The complaint and bill of particulars when read together do not show that the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on the defendants’ terms. Obviously the listing set forth in the bill of particulars does not include the complete terms. Essential terms remained therefore for later determination. (See Arnold v. Schmeidler, 144 App. Div. 420; House v. Hornburg, 267 App. Div. 557.) (Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The terms on which the seller listed the property for sale with the plaintiffs were not accepted by the proposed purchaser. The seller was not obliged to accept any different terms or to negotiate on any new terms. All concur, Me Cum and Vaughan, JJ., in result only, in the following memorandum: The complaint and bill of particulars when read together do not show that the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on the defendants’ terms. Obviously the listing set forth in the bill of particulars does not include the complete terms. Essential terms remained therefore for later determination. (See Arnold v. Schmeidler, 144 App. Div. 420; House v. Hornburg, 267 App. Div. 557.) (Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 621, 107 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parlato-v-brinkman-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack