Szarf v. Blumenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szarf v. Blumenfeld

5 A.D.2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6545

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1958

DocketAppeal No. 3

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 887 (Szarf v. Blumenfeld) 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

Szarf v. Blumenfeld, 5 A.D.2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s motion to vacate a money judgment in his favor, and granting other relief incidental thereto. The judgment was entered in an action (1) to rescind a contract by which appellant agreed to sell certain real property to respondent, and (2) to recover payments made on account of the purchase price and the expenses of examining the title, or for alternative relief. The judgment was vacated for the purpose of bringing in as parties defendant a purchaser, who is alleged to have taken subject to respondent’s contract, her grantee, and the holder of a building loan mortgage from said grantee. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order granting respondent’s motion to vacate a money judgment in his favor, and granting other relief incidental thereto. The judgment was entered in an action (1) to rescind a contract by which appellant agreed to sell certain real property to respondent, and (2) to recover payments made on account of the purchase price and the expenses of examining the title, or for alternative relief. The judgment was vacated for the purpose of bringing in as parties defendant a purchaser, who is alleged to have taken subject to respondent’s contract, her grantee, and the holder of a building loan mortgage from said grantee. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 887, 172 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szarf-v-blumenfeld-nyappdiv-1958.