Schoenfeld v. Atomic Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoenfeld v. Atomic Products Corp.

38 A.D.2d 718, 329 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5674

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 718 (Schoenfeld v. Atomic Products Corp.) 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

Schoenfeld v. Atomic Products Corp., 38 A.D.2d 718, 329 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendefe for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, in which defendant counterclaimed to recover damages for fraud, defendant appeals from an order-judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 14, 1971, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for sumary judgment. Order-judgment modified by striking therefrom all the decretal provisions other than the one which denied the cross motion and by adding thereto a provision that plaintiff’s motion is denied. As so modified, order-judgment affirmed, without costs. The record presents disputed issues of fact as to plaintiff’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations (Steinbruck v. Gazzara, 15 A D 2d 507; Rizzi v. Sussman, 9 A D 2d 961) and defendant’s defenses of cancellation (Royce v. Rymkevitch, 29 A D 2d 1029) and laches (Northern Operating Corp. v. Anopol, 25 A D 2d 551). These issues should only be resolved after trial. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendefe for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, in which defendant counterclaimed to recover damages for fraud, defendant appeals from an order-judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 14, 1971, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for sumary judgment. Order-judgment modified by striking therefrom all the decretal provisions other than the one which denied the cross motion and by adding thereto a provision that plaintiff’s motion is denied. As so modified, order-judgment affirmed, without costs. The record presents disputed issues of fact as to plaintiff’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations (Steinbruck v. Gazzara, 15 A D 2d 507; Rizzi v. Sussman, 9 A D 2d 961) and defendant’s defenses of cancellation (Royce v. Rymkevitch, 29 A D 2d 1029) and laches (Northern Operating Corp. v. Anopol, 25 A D 2d 551). These issues should only be resolved after trial. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 718, 329 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoenfeld-v-atomic-products-corp-nyappdiv-1972.