From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iannelli Bros., Inc. v. Muscarella

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 6, 1969
24 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1969)

Summary

holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of its down payment without the making of an obviously futile tender and demand

Summary of this case from Skyline Restoration Inc. v. Holdings

Opinion

Submitted February 19, 1969

Decided March 6, 1969

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, HUGH S. COYLE, J.

Garry J. Fury and Joseph E. Deady for appellant.

S.S. Goldsmith and A. Aaron Raphael for respondent.


Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN.


Summaries of

Iannelli Bros., Inc. v. Muscarella

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 6, 1969
24 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1969)

holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of its down payment without the making of an obviously futile tender and demand

Summary of this case from Skyline Restoration Inc. v. Holdings

holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of its down payment without the making of an obviously futile tender and demand

Summary of this case from Skyline Restoration Inc. v. Roslyn Jane Holdings, LLC
Case details for

Iannelli Bros., Inc. v. Muscarella

Case Details

Full title:IANNELLI BROS., INC., Respondent, v. ASSUNTA MUSCARELLA, Appellant, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 6, 1969

Citations

24 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1969)
300 N.Y.S.2d 117
248 N.E.2d 28

Citing Cases

Skyline Restoration Inc. v. Roslyn Jane Holdings, LLC

While the defendant argues that there was an anticipatory breach by the plaintiff in stating in advance of…

Skyline Restoration Inc. v. Holdings

Further, the submission of letters and emails between counsel evidence a dialogue regarding same. While the…