Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Twersky v. Kazaks

Twersky v. Kazaks

57 A.D.3d 766, 868 N.Y.2d 912
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2008·Published

Opinion

The appeal by the defendant is dismissed because she is not aggrieved by the judgment, which granted her complete relief by dismissing the only two causes of action asserted in the complaint (see CPLR 5511; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-545 [1983]; Roth v Michelson, 55 NY2d 278, 281 [1982]; Rorie v Woodmere Academy, 52 NY2d 200, 204 [1981]; Cherry v Koch, 126 AD2d 346, 348 [1987]).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly declined to [767]*767direct partial specific performance of the subject option agreement (see SJSJ Southold Realty, LLC v Fraser, 33 AD3d 784 [2006]; cf. Bee Jay Indus. Corp. v Fina, 98 AD2d 738 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 851 [1984]). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Twersky v. Kazaks, 57 A.D.3d 766, 868 N.Y.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

57 A.D.3d 766 (Twersky v. Kazaks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bee Jay Industrial Corp. v. Fina
466 N.E.2d 164 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Rorie v. Woodmere Academy
418 N.E.2d 659 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Roth v. Michelson
434 N.E.2d 228 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education
458 N.E.2d 1241 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
SJSJ Southold Realty, LLC v. Fraser
33 A.D.3d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bee Jay Industrial Corp. v. Fina
98 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Cherry v. Koch
126 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)