Legal Opinion

Taconic Inn Corp. v. Holsapple

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 14, 1946PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNunn, J.

The complaint demands judgment for a sum of money. The counterclaim seeks to compel the plaintiff to specifically perform the terms of a contract by which the defendants undertook to sell certain real property in Columbia County to the plaintiff’s assignor.

Being an action for the recovery of a sum of money only, the venue is properly laid in New York County unless, by virtue of the nature of the cause of action pleaded in the counterclaim, the provisions of subdivision 8 of section 183 of the Civil Practice Act are to be applied as requiring the trial to be had in the county where the real…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Nicoletto v. Pettit Supply Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  2. Oakes v. De LanceyNew York Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Zaczek v. ZaczekNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Gettinger v. Lattingtown Harbor Development Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Grace v. Deepdale Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
  4. Freifeld v. BeerNew York Supreme Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API