Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Routgauzer v. 346 21st Street, LLC

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

July 3, 2013

Lana Routgauzer, appellant-respondent,
v.
346 21st Street, LLC, respondent-appellant. Index No. 8645/08

Tsyngauz & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Yevgeny syngauz of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of real property and for specific performance of that contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 25, 2011, as, upon a decision of the same court dated March 22, 2010, made after a hearing, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing so much of the complaint as sought an award of damages, and the defendant cross-appeals from the same order and judgment.

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff's contention that the order of reference did not permit the Court Attorney

Referee to determine the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover incidental damages is without merit. The plaintiff's complaint and the conduct of the hearing indicate that the order of reference, although ambiguous, was intended to include a claim of damages incidental to the plaintiff's equitable claim (cf. Allison v Allison, 28 A.D.3d 406, 406-407, cert denied 549 U.S. 1307).

Contrary to the plaintiff's alternative contention, under the circumstances, the Court Attorney Referee properly concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages (see Feeley v Midas Props., 221 A.D.2d 314, 314-315; Perfetto v Scime, 182 A.D.2d 1126, 1126-1127; cf. Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 196 A.D.2d 564, 568).

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.