Porter v. Karam Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. Karam Associates

154 A.D.2d 584, 546 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 584 (Porter v. Karam Associates) 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

Porter v. Karam Associates, 154 A.D.2d 584, 546 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered April 12, 1988, which denied their renewed motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that material issues of fact exist as to whether the house which was the subject of the contract between the parties was constructed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and whether plaintiffs breached the contract by failing to close. To grant summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issues of fact are presented (see, Coley v Michelin Tire Corp., 99 AD2d 795). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, 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 contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered April 12, 1988, which denied their renewed motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that material issues of fact exist as to whether the house which was the subject of the contract between the parties was constructed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and whether plaintiffs breached the contract by failing to close. To grant summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issues of fact are presented (see, Coley v Michelin Tire Corp., 99 AD2d 795). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 584, 546 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-karam-associates-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack