Wilco Construction Corp. v. Prywes

14 A.D.2d 929, 222 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7691
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Time was not of the essence in the contract in suit. While plaintiff in its complaint failed to allege the facts showing that it was in default on the date set forth in the contract for the passing of title and showing that such default was excusable and worked no harm on defendant, we amend the complaint to conform to the proof in these respects (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 109, 434; Thorne Neale & Co. v. New York So. Coal Term. Corp., 270 App. Div. 816, affd. 295 N. Y. 977). Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. [29 Mise 2d 81.]

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

Wilco Construction Corp. v. Prywes, 14 A.D.2d 929, 222 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

14 A.D.2d 929 (Wilco Construction Corp. v. Prywes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

AVR Acquisition Corp. v. Schorr Bros. Development Corp.
270 A.D.2d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Johnson v. Munn
57 A.D.2d 108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)