From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lax v. Herman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 7, 1964
199 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1964)

Opinion

Argued April 27, 1964

Decided May 7, 1964

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, THOMAS C. CHIMERA, J.

Samuel M. Lane and Preben Jensen for appellant.

Elias Messing for George Herman and Stuart Diamond, respondents.

Bruno Schachner, Joseph Zaretzki and Albert A. Blinder for Stanley Easton, respondent.

No appearance for remaining respondents.


Order reversed and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the agreement was unambiguous and required compliance with certain conditions precedent specified therein. The record clearly shows that not all of the stated conditions were performed. Accordingly, the order appealed from should be reversed and summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff granted. The certified question is answered in the affirmative.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and SCILEPPI. Taking no part: Judge BERGAN.


Summaries of

Lax v. Herman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 7, 1964
199 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1964)
Case details for

Lax v. Herman

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD LAX, Appellant, v. GEORGE HERMAN et al., Individually and as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 7, 1964

Citations

199 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1964)
199 N.E.2d 510
250 N.Y.S.2d 432

Citing Cases

Van Slyke v. Pargas, Inc.

The mere admission by plaintiff that there was only a teeny faint odor of gas should not be sufficient to…