Bergoffen v. Hobart (235 A.D. 639, 1932)

Order, as resettled, denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on authority of N. E. D. Holding Co. v. McKinley (246 N. Y. 40). Lazansky, P. J., Young and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order on the ground that the contract is too indefinite and uncertain as a basis for an action for specific performance.