Wolf v. Herbil Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Herbil Holding Co.

79 A.D.2d 635, 434 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 635 (Wolf v. Herbil Holding Co.) 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

Wolf v. Herbil Holding Co., 79 A.D.2d 635, 434 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the failure of defendant Herbil Holding Co. to close title to real property purchased by it at a foreclosure sale, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 12,1979, which denied his motion to strike the answer and counterclaim of defendant Herbil Holding Co. and to set the matter down for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and case remitted to Special Term for an assessment of damages. Under the circumstances of this case, it was erroneous for Special Term to have determined that there were triable issues of fact concerning the liability of defendant Herbil Holding Co. Such liability was established by a prior order of Special Term from which defendant Herbil Holding Co. never appealed. Accordingly, the only question which remained was a determination as to the quantum of damages. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for the failure of defendant Herbil Holding Co. to close title to real property purchased by it at a foreclosure sale, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 12,1979, which denied his motion to strike the answer and counterclaim of defendant Herbil Holding Co. and to set the matter down for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and case remitted to Special Term for an assessment of damages. Under the circumstances of this case, it was erroneous for Special Term to have determined that there were triable issues of fact concerning the liability of defendant Herbil Holding Co. Such liability was established by a prior order of Special Term from which defendant Herbil Holding Co. never appealed. Accordingly, the only question which remained was a determination as to the quantum of damages. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 635, 434 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-herbil-holding-co-nyappdiv-1980.