Legal Opinion
Dukas v. Tolmach
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 26, 1956PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRabin, J.
Plaintiff, claiming that defendants’ title is unmarketable, sues to recover the amount of the deposit paid by him on a contract for the purchase of a residential property from defendants. Reimbursement for plaintiff’s expenses is also demanded.
The claim of unmarketability is based upon the following:
1. A stone retaining wall, lawn and plantings alleged to encroach (from 2% inches to 16 feet 2% inches) on a city owned street.
2. Another stone retaining wall alleged to encroach on the street to the extent of 17 feet 1% inches.
3. An access ramp or driveway alleged to encroach about 17 feet on the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Acme Realty Co. v. . SchinasiNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- New York Investors, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Jennings v. BaumannNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Jennings v. BaumannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bethurem v. HammettWyoming Supreme Court · 1987
- Rodolitz v. Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd. (In Re Rodolitz Holding Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Rodolitz v. Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd. (In Re Rodolitz Holding Corp.)District Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- Bethurem v. HammettWyoming Supreme Court · 1987