Williams v. Dicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Dicks

59 A.D.3d 538, 872 N.Y.S.2d 297

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 538 (Williams v. Dicks) 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

Williams v. Dicks, 59 A.D.3d 538, 872 N.Y.S.2d 297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 15, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Michael DeRiggs and Julie DeRiggs which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are no triable issues of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted. Rivera, J.E, Miller, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 15, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Michael DeRiggs and Julie DeRiggs which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there are no triable issues of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted. Rivera, J.E, Miller, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 538, 872 N.Y.S.2d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-dicks-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack