Salcito v. T-Jay Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salcito v. T-Jay Homes, Inc.

22 A.D.2d 961, 255 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 961 (Salcito v. T-Jay Homes, Inc.) 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

Salcito v. T-Jay Homes, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 961, 255 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the sum of $1,000 alleged to be due to the plaintiff under an escrow agreement, the defendants appeal: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 12, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (b) from the judgment entered the same date in plaintiff’s favor, pursuant to said order. Order and judgment reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements; and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, there were bona fide triable issues of fact at least with respect to whether plaintiff prevented the performance of the work to be done by the defendant T-Jay Homes, Inc., under the escrow agreement; and with respect to the number of items which were uncompleted under the terms of the escrow agreement. In view of the existence of such issues, it was error to grant summary judgment (cf. Falk v. Goodman, 7 N Y 2d 87, 91; Stone v. Goodson, 8 N Y 2d 8, 12). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the sum of $1,000 alleged to be due to the plaintiff under an escrow agreement, the defendants appeal: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 12, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (b) from the judgment entered the same date in plaintiff’s favor, pursuant to said order. Order and judgment reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements; and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, there were bona fide triable issues of fact at least with respect to whether plaintiff prevented the performance of the work to be done by the defendant T-Jay Homes, Inc., under the escrow agreement; and with respect to the number of items which were uncompleted under the terms of the escrow agreement. In view of the existence of such issues, it was error to grant summary judgment (cf. Falk v. Goodman, 7 N Y 2d 87, 91; Stone v. Goodson, 8 N Y 2d 8, 12). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 961, 255 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salcito-v-t-jay-homes-inc-nyappdiv-1964.