Legal Opinion

Doctors v. Freidus

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1949PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.

Motion, pursuant to rules 106 and 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for an order dismissing the complaint herein on the ground that the alleged contract sued upon is unenforcible under the Statute of Frauds. Insofar as relief is sought under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, it must be denied. (Hoffman v. Mittleman, 147 Misc. 442.)

The complaint alleges that the defendant Freidus as the owner, and the corporate defendant as auctioneer, offered certain real property for sale at a public auction and represented that the said sale would be absolute and unconditional; that plaintiff’s bid…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mentz v. . NewwitterNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Tallman v. . FranklinNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  3. Hoffman v. MittlemannCity of New York Municipal Court · 1933
  4. Peters v. DayNew York Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Brandwein v. Provident Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API