Legal Opinion
Metz v. Forest Hills Homes, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 19, 1949PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.
Motion by defendant for an order canceling a notice of pendency on the ground that the action is not one in which such a notice may be filed.
On July 19, 1948, plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant to buy certain real property upon which defendant was to construct a building in accordance with certain plans. According to the complaint the building was not so constructed and defendant’s representations that the property was fit for the purposes described in the agreement were false and fraudulent. The complaint contains two causes of action, the first for rescission and the second…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Elterman v. . HymanNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Davis v. William Rosenzweig Realty Operating Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Interboro Operating Corp. v. Commonwealth Security & Mortgage Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Farbro Corp. v. A. F. A. Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
3Cited by3 opinions
- Metz v. Forest Hills Homes, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1949
- Rosenberg v. RitterNew York Supreme Court · 1962
- Tinkess v. BurnsNew York Supreme Court · 1959