Weinberg v. Osterholm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinberg v. Osterholm

20 A.D.2d 921, 249 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016

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

DecidedApril 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 921 (Weinberg v. Osterholm) 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

Weinberg v. Osterholm, 20 A.D.2d 921, 249 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the purchasers of real property to recover damages for alleged fraud in the sale of the property, the defendants Osterholm, the sellers, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1963 which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to dismiss the appeal denied. In our opinion, on this record, a triable issue of fact is presented as to whether at the time of the closing there was any misrepresentation with respect to the lease upon the tavern, with respect to the rental being paid by the lessee, and with respect to the security deposited by such lessee. In thus stating our opinion as to the triable issue of fact presented on this record, we do not intend to preclude any other issues of fact which may be raised by the proof adduced at the trial. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the purchasers of real property to recover damages for alleged fraud in the sale of the property, the defendants Osterholm, the sellers, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1963 which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to dismiss the appeal denied. In our opinion, on this record, a triable issue of fact is presented as to whether at the time of the closing there was any misrepresentation with respect to the lease upon the tavern, with respect to the rental being paid by the lessee, and with respect to the security deposited by such lessee. In thus stating our opinion as to the triable issue of fact presented on this record, we do not intend to preclude any other issues of fact which may be raised by the proof adduced at the trial. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 921, 249 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinberg-v-osterholm-nyappdiv-1964.