Three Star Offset Printing, Inc. v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Three Star Offset Printing, Inc. v. Daniels

69 A.D.2d 858, 415 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11557

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

DecidedApril 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 858 (Three Star Offset Printing, Inc. v. Daniels) 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

Three Star Offset Printing, Inc. v. Daniels, 69 A.D.2d 858, 415 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of an option to purchase real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 28, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of defendant. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error to exclude testimony by plaintiff’s attorney as to a conversation he had with the defendant’s deceased predecessor in title as to the intent of the parties with respect to the meaning of a purchase-option provision in the lease in suit. A new trial is required in order to ascertain the intent of the parties as to the option provision (see Three Star Offset Print, v Daniels, 58 AD2d 862). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of an option to purchase real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 28, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of defendant. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was error to exclude testimony by plaintiff’s attorney as to a conversation he had with the defendant’s deceased predecessor in title as to the intent of the parties with respect to the meaning of a purchase-option provision in the lease in suit. A new trial is required in order to ascertain the intent of the parties as to the option provision (see Three Star Offset Print, v Daniels, 58 AD2d 862). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 858, 415 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/three-star-offset-printing-inc-v-daniels-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack