Saltzman v. Fairbank Realty Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Saltzman v. Fairbank Realty Corp.

145 Misc. 478, 260 N.Y.S. 334, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1594

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 2, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 478 (Saltzman v. Fairbank Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saltzman v. Fairbank Realty Corp., 145 Misc. 478, 260 N.Y.S. 334, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contract herein provided that in the event of the death of the buyer before payments are completed the buyer’s nominee or representatives would have the option to continue payments or rescind the contract. In case of an election by the buyer’s representatives to rescind, the seller then had the option to either return the installments of purchase price paid, with interest, or convey the property without further payments. As the buyer’s representatives thus have control of the determination of the question whether the contract would subsist or be at end, we fail to see that the alternate right of the seller to give a deed rather than the money back in the event of a rescission, can be held to constitute a violation of the law prohibiting the doing of insurance business without State approval. (Ins. Law, § 54.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The contract herein provided that in the event of the death of the buyer before payments are completed the buyer’s nominee or representatives would have the option to continue payments or rescind the contract. In case of an election by the buyer’s representatives to rescind, the seller then had the option to either return the installments of purchase price paid, with interest, or convey the property without further payments. As the buyer’s representatives thus have control of the determination of the question whether the contract would subsist or be at end, we fail to see that the alternate right of the seller to give a deed rather than the money back in the event of a rescission, can be held to constitute a violation of the law prohibiting the doing of insurance business without State approval. (Ins. Law, § 54.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 478, 260 N.Y.S. 334, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saltzman-v-fairbank-realty-corp-nyappterm-1932.