From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bergoffen v. Hobart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

January, 1932.


Order, as resettled, denying defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on authority of N.E.D. Holding Co. v. McKinley ( 246 N.Y. 40). Lazansky, P.J., Young and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order on the ground that the contract is too indefinite and uncertain as a basis for an action for specific performance.


Summaries of

Bergoffen v. Hobart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Bergoffen v. Hobart

Case Details

Full title:HARRY BERGOFFEN and Others, Respondents, v. JULIA HOBART, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1932

Citations

235 App. Div. 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)