Pfalzer v. Harloff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfalzer v. Harloff

91 A.D.2d 1166, 459 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16503

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1166 (Pfalzer v. Harloff) 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

Pfalzer v. Harloff, 91 A.D.2d 1166, 459 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, Simons, J., not participating. Memorandum: The Trial Justice properly admitted parol evidence to aid in the construction of the description contained in the contract of sale (Mullen v Washburn, 224 NY 413, 418; Coleman v Manhattan Beach Improvement Co., 94 NY 229, 232; Pettit v Shepard, 32 NY 97, 104; Smith v Slocum, 71 AD2d 1058, 1059). The parol evidence indicated that defendant, Roy Harloff, intended to sell all of his farm, which then consisted of approximately 150 acres, including the 22 acres south of Stegman Road. This parol evidence was consistent with the description in the contract which called for the sale of “[t]he Roy Harloff farm, so-called * * * consisting of about 150 acres of land”. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — specific performance.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, Simons, J., not participating. Memorandum: The Trial Justice properly admitted parol evidence to aid in the construction of the description contained in the contract of sale (Mullen v Washburn, 224 NY 413, 418; Coleman v Manhattan Beach Improvement Co., 94 NY 229, 232; Pettit v Shepard, 32 NY 97, 104; Smith v Slocum, 71 AD2d 1058, 1059). The parol evidence indicated that defendant, Roy Harloff, intended to sell all of his farm, which then consisted of approximately 150 acres, including the 22 acres south of Stegman Road. This parol evidence was consistent with the description in the contract which called for the sale of “[t]he Roy Harloff farm, so-called * * * consisting of about 150 acres of land”. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — specific performance.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1166, 459 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfalzer-v-harloff-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack