Russo v. Metropolitan Savings Bank

New York Supreme Court

Russo v. Metropolitan Savings Bank

163 Misc. 581, 296 N.Y.S. 350, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1288

DecidedJanuary 5, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 163 Misc. 581 (Russo v. Metropolitan Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russo v. Metropolitan Savings Bank, 163 Misc. 581, 296 N.Y.S. 350, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1288 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Schmuck, J.

Defendant moves pursuant to subdivision 8 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice for a dismissal of the complaint herein, which seeks specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to lease real property for a term of three years. There is no writing signed by the lessor or his lawful agent other than a receipt given to plaintiff upon payment of the sum of eighty dollars as a security deposit while negotiations were being carried on regarding the proposed lease, and which lacks any expression regarding the consideration. The memorandum being insufficient to meet the requirements of sections 242 and 259 of the Real Property Law, and the alleged contract, in consequence, being unenforcible. the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

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

Schmuck, J.

Defendant moves pursuant to subdivision 8 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice for a dismissal of the complaint herein, which seeks specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to lease real property for a term of three years. There is no writing signed by the lessor or his lawful agent other than a receipt given to plaintiff upon payment of the sum of eighty dollars as a security deposit while negotiations were being carried on regarding the proposed lease, and which lacks any expression regarding the consideration. The memorandum being insufficient to meet the requirements of sections 242 and 259 of the Real Property Law, and the alleged contract, in consequence, being unenforcible. the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 581, 296 N.Y.S. 350, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-metropolitan-savings-bank-nysupct-1937.