Vogt v. Orlando

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vogt v. Orlando

33 A.D.2d 705, 306 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2817

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 705 (Vogt v. Orlando) 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

Vogt v. Orlando, 33 A.D.2d 705, 306 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract between plaintiff and defendant’s testatrix to sell the testatrix’ real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 10, 1967, which .dismissed the complaint upon the merits after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The daughter of the purchaser (plaintiff) may testify that defendant’s testatrix signed a binder in the presence of the daughter, because the latter does not have an interest in the transaction (Whitman v. Foley, 125 N. Y. 651; Walsh v. Herrick, 248 App. Div. 799). Comparison of the signatures on the binder and on the contract is admissible evidence by witnesses called for that purpose (CPLB 4536). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract between plaintiff and defendant’s testatrix to sell the testatrix’ real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 10, 1967, which .dismissed the complaint upon the merits after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The daughter of the purchaser (plaintiff) may testify that defendant’s testatrix signed a binder in the presence of the daughter, because the latter does not have an interest in the transaction (Whitman v. Foley, 125 N. Y. 651; Walsh v. Herrick, 248 App. Div. 799). Comparison of the signatures on the binder and on the contract is admissible evidence by witnesses called for that purpose (CPLB 4536). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 705, 306 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogt-v-orlando-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack