Rosen v. Cain Cain v. Rosen
ROSEN v. CAIN Et Al.; CAIN Et Al. v. ROSEN
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The appellees in No. 11,947 sued for specific performance of a contract with the appellant by the terms of which the latter agreed to sell them a “proprietary lease” on a unit in a co-operative apartment house owned and operated by a corporation which he controlled.
Appellant resisted on the ground that a condition precedent — approval of the purchasers by the corporation’s directors — had not been met. It appeared, however, that, at or about the same time, he had sold to the female appellee a lease on an adjoining apartment without board approval. He said, “* * * I thought I knew enough of Mrs. Cain to approve her without the board * The District Court correctly concluded that appellant’s defense was based on an insubstantial technicality. The corpora- *810 ¿ion was his alter egó.
The judgment decreeing specific performánce is affirmed.
The second appeal, No. 11,948, is from the trial court’s refusal to give the purchasers judgment against Rosen for their" counsel fee. We cannot say this refusal was an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed on both appeals.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.