TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kessler v. Rae

Milton Kessler, as Assignees for the Benefit of Creditors of Argene Building Corp. v. Joseph Rae

Kessler v. Rae, 40 A.D.2d 708 (1972)
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
October 24, 1972
Citations
40 A.D.2d 708336 N.Y.S.2d 6801972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3681

Opinion of the Court

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

In an action by a vendee’s assignees to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell real property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 7,1971, in favor of plaintiffs, after a nonjury trial. Judg *709 ment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, reversible error was committed by barring the defendant vendor from testifying about precontract communications between him and the corporate vendee’s president or attorney concerning the state of defendant’s title. If a vendee knows of the inability of his vendor to convey the title he has undertaken to convey, the vendee’s damages are not measureable by the loss of his bargain (Margraf v. Muir, 57 N. Y. 155 ; Diamond Cent. v. Gilbert, 13 A D 2d 931). Further, there is no lawful evidentiary basis for the trial court’s finding that defendant, prior to the execution of the contract of sale, failed to disclose to the corporate vendee that he did not have title to one of the lots in the parcel he had undertaken to convey. The only sources for that finding are posteontract letters of the corporate vendee’s attorney to defendant’s attorney containing inadmissible hearsay statements by the former concerning defendant’s alleged failure to disclose to the corporate vendee his incomplete title. Last, it was error to prohibit defendant from impeaching plaintiff Kessler as a witness by inquiring into whether Kessler was a plaintiff in another pending action against defendant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11980: 11982: 12013: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Madison v. Marlatt619 P.2d 708 (Wyo. 1980)
  2. Grassi v. Tatavito Homes, Inc.90 A.D.2d 479 (1982)
  3. Thompson v. Korn48 A.D.2d 1007 (1975)
  4. KHANJANI, S. SHANE v. SCHREIBER, NORMAN104 A.D.3d 1181 (2013)

Most recent

  1. KHANJANI, S. SHANE v. SCHREIBER, NORMAN104 A.D.3d 1181 (2013)
  2. Grassi v. Tatavito Homes, Inc.90 A.D.2d 479 (1982)
  3. Madison v. Marlatt619 P.2d 708 (Wyo. 1980)
  4. Thompson v. Korn48 A.D.2d 1007 (1975)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Margraf v. Muir, 57 N.Y. 155 (1874) 51

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