From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sakowitz v. Ketsoglou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1986
120 A.D.2d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 5, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J., Velsor, J.).


Order entered October 16, 1984, modified on the law by adding thereto a provision that, upon searching the record, partial summary judgment is granted to the defendants striking that portion of the complaint which seeks recovery of counsel fees. As so modified, order affirmed.

Order dated July 24, 1985, affirmed.

The defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

We find that Special Term acted properly in denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, as the affidavits submitted by the parties on the motion raise triable issues of fact. We find that the references to three different locations of the property in the contract of sale are sufficient to create factual questions concerning whether the parties intended that the location of the subject property within the Incorporated Village of Garden City be a material term of the agreement, and, if so, whether the plaintiffs knew of the property's true location before executing the contract and whether they reasonably relied upon one of the references as indicating that the property was in the Incorporated Village of Garden City in entering into the agreement. Under these circumstances, the parties should be permitted to present further proof on the issues of contractual intent, knowledge and reliance (see generally, Board of Educ. v Greene, 112 A.D.2d 182; Barbarita v Shilling, 111 A.D.2d 200).

The plaintiffs' claim for counsel fees must be dismissed since such damages are recoverable only when permitted by contract or statute (see, Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12; City of Buffalo v Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241; Hoffliss Water Corp. v Arne, 88 A.D.2d 989).

Furthermore, we discern no error in the denial of the motion to compel payment of the escrow funds into court. At this point in the proceeding, no valid reason or legal basis has been presented for burdening the court with the task of securing the plaintiffs' down payment which is now deposited in an attorney's escrow account. Mollen, P.J., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sakowitz v. Ketsoglou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1986
120 A.D.2d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Sakowitz v. Ketsoglou

Case Details

Full title:MERVIN SAKOWITZ et al., Appellants, v. SMARAGDA KETSOGLOU et al.…

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

Date published: May 5, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Energycresent v. Creative Modules Enterprises

The matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court for an inquest to determine the amount of damages, if any,…