Red Hook Marble, Inc. v. Herskowitz & Rosenberg

15 A.D.3d 560, 789 N.Y.S.2d 689
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the plaintiff’s option to purchase certain real property from the defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated May 16, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion for an extension of time in which to exercise the option and denied the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination of the related appeal from an order of the same court dated November 14, 2003 (see Red Hook Marble v Herskowitz & Rosenberg, 15 AD3d 560 [2005] [decided herewith]). Santucci, J.P, Krausman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Red Hook Marble, Inc. v. Herskowitz & Rosenberg, 15 A.D.3d 560, 789 N.Y.S.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

15 A.D.3d 560 (Red Hook Marble, Inc. v. Herskowitz & Rosenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Corriette v. Mele
2025 NY Slip Op 06687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
US Bank N.A. v. Nelson
2019 NY Slip Op 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Barlia v. Murcott Realty Corp.
41 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)