Todem Homes, Inc. v. Freidus

55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15388
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 640 (Todem Homes, Inc. v. Freidus) 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
Todem Homes, Inc. v. Freidus, 55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 6, 1976, as limited their claims for reimbursement for taxes, and the interest thereon, and for attorneys’ fees. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from subdivision I of the fifth decretal paragraph thereof paragraphs D and E and substituting therefor a provision requiring plaintiff to pay the taxes, and the interest thereon, as of the date of closing. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term to determine the amount of the payment required to be made by plaintiff and for entry of an appropriate amended order. On the record presented, we find that defendants did not act unreasonably in withholding the consents required by the planning board. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to reimbursement for taxes, and the interest thereon, as of the date of closing. As to the agreement between the parties providing for the payment of defendants’ attorneys’ fees, we hold that said agreement did not contemplate reimbursement to defendants for attorneys’ fees incurred in litigation with plaintiff. It provided only for payment of attorneys’ fees incurred in reviewing consents required by the planning board. Such fees were awarded by the court at Special Term. Hopkins, [641]*641Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur. [84 Misc 2d 1023.]

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

Related

Mohen v. Mooney
205 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp.
97 A.D.2d 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional De Costa Rica, S.A.
570 F. Supp. 870 (S.D. New York, 1983)
McCrensky v. Schweitzer
116 Misc. 2d 183 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.2d 640, 390 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todem-homes-inc-v-freidus-nyappdiv-1976.