Rose v. Imrie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Imrie

5 A.D.2d 722, 168 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3521

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 722 (Rose v. Imrie) 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

Rose v. Imrie, 5 A.D.2d 722, 168 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in Warren County upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The judgment was for the specific performance by defendant of his contract to purchase certain realty. He contends that certain clauses were added to the writing constituting the alleged contract, after he had signed it. He asserts, also, that the agreement was to be conditioned on his obtaining a mortgage loan (and actually he did obtain from a savings and loan association at least an informal commitment to take a mortgage for a substantial amount) and was to be conditioned, further, on the portion of the premises northerly of the dwelling being adequate to accommodate a garage. The trial court found that the writing contained the complete agreement of the parties, that no material element was left for future negotiation and that the agreement was delivered unconditionally. Upon the record before us these conclusions were warranted and we cannot say that the trier of the facts erred in finding them established by the preponderance of the evidence, thus accepting the testimony of plaintiff and his agent and rejecting the evidence adduced by defendant including the arguable inferences which defendant urges should be drawn from the circumstances of the date of the check given by defendant’s wife and the time of the mailing to defendant of his copy of the contract. We find no merit in appellant’s final contention that the granting of specific performance constituted an abuse of discretion. The relief awarded was warranted by the evidence. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Bergan, J. P., Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in Warren County upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The judgment was for the specific performance by defendant of his contract to purchase certain realty. He contends that certain clauses were added to the writing constituting the alleged contract, after he had signed it. He asserts, also, that the agreement was to be conditioned on his obtaining a mortgage loan (and actually he did obtain from a savings and loan association at least an informal commitment to take a mortgage for a substantial amount) and was to be conditioned, further, on the portion of the premises northerly of the dwelling being adequate to accommodate a garage. The trial court found that the writing contained the complete agreement of the parties, that no material element was left for future negotiation and that the agreement was delivered unconditionally. Upon the record before us these conclusions were warranted and we cannot say that the trier of the facts erred in finding them established by the preponderance of the evidence, thus accepting the testimony of plaintiff and his agent and rejecting the evidence adduced by defendant including the arguable inferences which defendant urges should be drawn from the circumstances of the date of the check given by defendant’s wife and the time of the mailing to defendant of his copy of the contract. We find no merit in appellant’s final contention that the granting of specific performance constituted an abuse of discretion. The relief awarded was warranted by the evidence. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Bergan, J. P., Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 722, 168 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-imrie-nyappdiv-1957.