Szelik v. Bonsignore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szelik v. Bonsignore

4 A.D.2d 708, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975

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

DecidedJune 24, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 708 (Szelik v. Bonsignore) 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

Szelik v. Bonsignore, 4 A.D.2d 708, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the purchasers, to rescind a contract for the purchase and sale of real property, and to recover the payment made on account of the contract price, less $25, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint entered on a decision after trial. The contract provides for its cancellation in the event the purchasers are unable to procure a mortgage commitment within 30 days. Appellants did not apply for such commitment and assert that they were unable to do so because appellant wife suffered a nervous breakdown and appellant husband was required to remain at home to care for her. There was evidence to the contrary, and evidence from which it might be found that there were other reasons for appellant’s nonperformance. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

In an action by the purchasers, to rescind a contract for the purchase and sale of real property, and to recover the payment made on account of the contract price, less $25, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint entered on a decision after trial. The contract provides for its cancellation in the event the purchasers are unable to procure a mortgage commitment within 30 days. Appellants did not apply for such commitment and assert that they were unable to do so because appellant wife suffered a nervous breakdown and appellant husband was required to remain at home to care for her. There was evidence to the contrary, and evidence from which it might be found that there were other reasons for appellant’s nonperformance. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 708, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szelik-v-bonsignore-nyappdiv-1957.