Turi v. Marotta

Order insofar as it denies defendants’ motion to frame issues to be submitted to the jury reversed on the law and motion granted in that respect, and otherwise order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The plaintiffs lost all rights to compel specific performance against the defendants Marotta when they entered into the later contract with the defendant Orlando. (Saperstein v. Mechanics é Farmers Sav. Bank, 228 N. Y. 257, 260; Cohen, v. A. F. A. Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 262; Potter v. County of Essex, 272 App. Dir. 969; Price r. Kline, 278 App. Div. 657.) When they…