Legal Opinion

Balkum v. Marino

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 14, 1949PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We read the complaint as alleging an agreement for the sale of real property which it is now sought to specifically enforce. Neither the parol evidence rule nor the Statute of Frauds forbids proof of the actual agreement between the parties in order to resolve an ambiguity, or establish that-a printed portion of the form executed was mistakenly used to describe the G-. I. mortgage already explicitly provided for, or that the writing either does or does not accurately evidence a prior oral agreement. There must be a trial and evidence taken. For these reasons, the judgment of the Appellate…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mitler v. FriedebergNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Lashway v. SorellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  3. Boyajian v. CaseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. Monaco v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  5. Calcagno v. RobertsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API