Rizzo v. Landmark Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizzo v. Landmark Realty Corp.

277 A.D.2d 1094

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1094 (Rizzo v. Landmark Realty Corp.) 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

Rizzo v. Landmark Realty Corp., 277 A.D.2d 1094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs to the appellants, and defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: We feel that the Special Term was in error in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Section 240-a of the Real Property Law does not deprive a vendee of the right of specific performance with abatement. Said section (subd. 1, par. [a]) renders unenforeible insofar [1095]*1095as the vendor is concerned the right to specific performance when the loss is material. It does not, however, destroy any common-law right of the vendee to specific performance with abatement. (See Bostwick v. Beach, 103 N. Y. 414, 422, and Warren v. Hoch, 276 App. Div. 607.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in an action for specific performance.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 630.]

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs to the appellants, and defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: We feel that the Special Term was in error in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Section 240-a of the Real Property Law does not deprive a vendee of the right of specific performance with abatement. Said section (subd. 1, par. [a]) renders unenforeible insofar [1095]*1095as the vendor is concerned the right to specific performance when the loss is material. It does not, however, destroy any common-law right of the vendee to specific performance with abatement. (See Bostwick v. Beach, 103 N. Y. 414, 422, and Warren v. Hoch, 276 App. Div. 607.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in an action for specific performance.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 630.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzo-v-landmark-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack