Schaps v. Roberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schaps v. Roberman

2 A.D.2d 714, 153 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881

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

DecidedJune 25, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 714 (Schaps v. Roberman) 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

Schaps v. Roberman, 2 A.D.2d 714, 153 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

After the complaint had been dismissed in an action brought by respondent to compel appellant and his wife to perform a written memorandum for the sale and purchase of real property, respondent brought this action at law to recover damages for breach of contract. The complaint in the specific performance action was dismissed on the merits after trial because appellant’s wife had not signed the memorandum although appellant had. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint herein on the ground that the judgment dismissing the complaint in the prior action for specific performance is res judicata as to this action at law. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Clarkson Bldg. Corp. v. Schafer-Nebenzahl Investing Co., 234 App. Div. 794, affg. 138 Misc. 750.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

After the complaint had been dismissed in an action brought by respondent to compel appellant and his wife to perform a written memorandum for the sale and purchase of real property, respondent brought this action at law to recover damages for breach of contract. The complaint in the specific performance action was dismissed on the merits after trial because appellant’s wife had not signed the memorandum although appellant had. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint herein on the ground that the judgment dismissing the complaint in the prior action for specific performance is res judicata as to this action at law. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Clarkson Bldg. Corp. v. Schafer-Nebenzahl Investing Co., 234 App. Div. 794, affg. 138 Misc. 750.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 714, 153 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaps-v-roberman-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack