Vogt v. Orlando

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

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

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).

33 A.D.2d 705 (Vogt v. Orlando) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitman v. . Foley
26 N.E. 725 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Walsh v. Herrick
248 A.D. 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)