Shirk v. Broad Hollow Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shirk v. Broad Hollow Estates, Inc.

283 A.D. 664, 127 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 664 (Shirk v. Broad Hollow Estates, 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

Shirk v. Broad Hollow Estates, Inc., 283 A.D. 664, 127 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting and to compel specific performance of a written agreement between respondent and appellants, by requiring appellant Broad Hollow Estates, Inc., to convey to respondent an undivided one-tenth interest in certain parcels of real property, the appellants interposed several defenses, one of which pleaded the Statute of Frauds, and four counterclaims. Appellants moved for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency and because the contracts sued on are unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds, for judgment on the pleadings for the relief demanded in the first and third counterclaims, on the basis of admissions contained in respondent’s reply, and for severance as to the second and fourth counterclaims. The motion was denied. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an accounting and to compel specific performance of a written agreement between respondent and appellants, by requiring appellant Broad Hollow Estates, Inc., to convey to respondent an undivided one-tenth interest in certain parcels of real property, the appellants interposed several defenses, one of which pleaded the Statute of Frauds, and four counterclaims. Appellants moved for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency and because the contracts sued on are unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds, for judgment on the pleadings for the relief demanded in the first and third counterclaims, on the basis of admissions contained in respondent’s reply, and for severance as to the second and fourth counterclaims. The motion was denied. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 664, 127 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirk-v-broad-hollow-estates-inc-nyappdiv-1954.