TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mondrus v. Salt Haven Corp.

Essie Mondrus v. Salt Haven Corporation

Mondrus v. Salt Haven Corp., 270 A.D. 1030 (1946)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 17, 1946
Citations
270 A.D. 103063 N.Y.S.2d 2051946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5212

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

This is an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property owned by appellant corporation, and the plaintiff joins as a party defendant a lawyer named Charles W. Philipbar. The claim is that the contract sought to be specifically performed was signed by the lawyer as the attorney and agent for the corporation. The corporation now seeks to repudiate the contract by reason of section 259 of the Real Property Law which provides, briefly, that such a contract is void unless subscribed by the party to be charged or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing. Order denying the appellant corporation^ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint modified on the law, by striking from the ordering paragraph the word “ denied ” and substituting therefor the word “ granted ”, and by adding a further ordering paragraph granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint containing the proposed second and third causes of action. As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, the amended complaint to be served within twenty days after the entry of an order hereon. We are of opinion that the plaintiff has not negatived the appellant’s showing that its lawyer was not authorized by writing to enter into a contract to convey the property in question. (Real Property Law, § 259.) The Special Term, having denied the appellant’s motion, granted the plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended complaint, but that provision was not carried into the order. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1046.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1946: 11962: 11964: 11969: 11971: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Koufman v. International Business Machines Corp.295 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
  2. Besinger v. National Tea Co.275 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)
  3. Goldberg v. Spruce Ridge Corp.35 Misc. 2d 253 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  4. Gross v. Chappelle21 A.D.2d 679 (1964)
  5. Joehl v. Tricarico271 A.D.2d 898 (1946)

Most recent

  1. Besinger v. National Tea Co.275 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)
  2. Koufman v. International Business Machines Corp.295 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)
  3. Gross v. Chappelle21 A.D.2d 679 (1964)
  4. Goldberg v. Spruce Ridge Corp.35 Misc. 2d 253 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  5. Joehl v. Tricarico271 A.D.2d 898 (1946)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list