Castaldi v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2018–10967,Index No. 607424/16 |
| Citation | 203 A.D.3d 690,164 N.Y.S.3d 626 |
| Parties | Robert CASTALDI, et al., respondents, v. SYOSSET CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, defendant, Oyster Bay–East Norwich Central School District, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frazer & Feldman, LLP, Garden City, NY (James H. Pyun and Laura M. Dilimetin of counsel), for appellant.
Forchelli Deegan Terrana LLP, Uniondale, NY (Gregory S. Lisi, Richard A. Blumberg, and Lisa M. Casa of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs’ property is intersected by the boundary lines of the Oyster Bay–East Norwich Central School District and the Syosset Central School District, the defendant Oyster Bay–East Norwich Central School District appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Denise L. Sher, J.), entered August 9, 2018. The judgment, upon an order of the same court entered October 16, 2017, inter alia, denying that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and upon a decision of the same court dated July 11, 2018, made after a nonjury trial, declared that the property is intersected by the boundary lines of the Oyster Bay–East Norwich Central School District and the Syosset Central School District.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In 2015, the plaintiffs listed their home in Oyster Bay Cove (hereinafter the property) for sale, and were advised by the listing agent that there could be a substantial difference in the sale price depending on whether residents of the property were eligible to send their children to the Syosset Central School District (hereinafter the Syosset District). Also in 2015, the plaintiffs sought to have the defendant Oyster Bay–East Norwich Central School District (hereinafter the Oyster Bay District) recognize their property as intersected by the boundary lines of both the Oyster Bay District and the Syosset District, thereby entitling any residents of the property to designate either of those school districts pursuant to Education Law § 3203.
In July 2016, the plaintiffs entered into a contract of sale for the property, which contained a condition that the prospective buyers must be able to designate the Syosset District for their children. In an email dated August 12, 2016, the superintendent of the Oyster Bay District advised the prospective buyers that it was premature to confirm whether they would be able to designate the Syosset District for their children, but that "if such a determination could be made at this point, it ... would have to be denied as it appears that the entirety of the property is within the Oyster Bay[ ] ... District." The prospective buyers subsequently elected to cancel the contract of sale.
In September 2016, the plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the property is intersected by the boundary lines of the Oyster Bay District and the Syosset District. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the complaint, and the Oyster Bay District cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In an order entered October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the motion and the cross motion. On August 9, 2018, after a nonjury trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs declaring that the property is intersected by the boundary lines of the Oyster Bay District and the Syosset District. The Oyster Bay District appeals.
Contrary to the Oyster Bay District's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders Ventures, Inc. v. Catcove Grp., Inc.
...Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; Castaldi v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 203 A.D.3d 690, 164 N.Y.S.3d 626 )."To prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) ......
-
Rimberg v. Horowitz
...close case, that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (see Castaldi v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 203 A.D.3d 690, 692, 164 N.Y.S.3d 626 ; Crozier v. Sauers, 109 A.D.3d 507, 508, 970 N.Y.S.2d 323 ; Matter of Capizola v. Vantage Intl., 2 A.D.3d 84......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Tustaniwsky (In re Tustaniwsky)
...8.4(d) 204 A.D.3d 165 (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ).164 N.Y.S.3d 626 As to the appropriate sanction to impose, as a general rule in reciprocal disciplinary matters, this Court gives significant weight to the s......
-
Virgilio Trailer Corp. v. Ferrandino & Son, Inc.
...Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; Castaldi v. Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 203 A.D.3d 690, 164 N.Y.S.3d 626 )."The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plai......