South Fourth Street Properties, Inc. v. Muschel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

South Fourth Street Properties, Inc. v. Muschel

256 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14035

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 569 (South Fourth Street Properties, Inc. v. Muschel) 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

South Fourth Street Properties, Inc. v. Muschel, 256 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 22, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, inasmuch as the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties abandoned the contract in question (see, Matter of Rothko, 43 NY2d 305, 324; Savitsky v Sukenik, 240 AD2d 557, 559). In light of our determination, we need not consider the plaintiffs remaining contentions. Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 22, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, inasmuch as the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties abandoned the contract in question (see, Matter of Rothko, 43 NY2d 305, 324; Savitsky v Sukenik, 240 AD2d 557, 559). In light of our determination, we need not consider the plaintiffs remaining contentions. Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 569, 682 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-fourth-street-properties-inc-v-muschel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack