2BSurrey, LLC v. 20 East 76th Street Owner LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2BSurrey, LLC v. 20 East 76th Street Owner LLC

134 A.D.3d 460, 19 N.Y.S.3d 882

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

Docket16324 652226/14

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 460 (2BSurrey, LLC v. 20 East 76th Street Owner LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

2BSurrey, LLC v. 20 East 76th Street Owner LLC, 134 A.D.3d 460, 19 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered March 20, 2015, which denied defendants’ preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied the motion to dismiss. At issue is plaintiff’s proposed $10 million purchase of an interest in a ground lease relating to the Surrey Hotel in New York *461 City. The complaint alleges that the parties, by their course of conduct, waived any writing requirement at least three times: by adjourning the closing date without a writing prior to the original agreement’s January 31, 2014 expiration; by allowing defendants to complete financing without “written approval . . . in a writing executed by both Parties and delivered to the other”; and by adjourning the closing date from June 30th to July 30th without a writing.

The motion court properly found that the complaint, as amplified by the affidavits (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]), sufficiently alleged that the parties had consistently waived the writing requirements under the subject agreement. The motion court also correctly found sufficient, at the pleading stage, plaintiff’s allegations of partial performance and equitable estoppel as a basis for preventing defendants from invoking the no oral modification clause of the parties’ agreement. Similarly, plaintiff sufficiently pled a “willful default” by defendants that would entitle plaintiff, under the written agreement, to specific performance, and not just a return of its down payment. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered March 20, 2015, which denied defendants’ preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly denied the motion to dismiss. At issue is plaintiff’s proposed $10 million purchase of an interest in a ground lease relating to the Surrey Hotel in New York *461 City. The complaint alleges that the parties, by their course of conduct, waived any writing requirement at least three times: by adjourning the closing date without a writing prior to the original agreement’s January 31, 2014 expiration; by allowing defendants to complete financing without “written approval . . . in a writing executed by both Parties and delivered to the other”; and by adjourning the closing date from June 30th to July 30th without a writing.

The motion court properly found that the complaint, as amplified by the affidavits (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]), sufficiently alleged that the parties had consistently waived the writing requirements under the subject agreement. The motion court also correctly found sufficient, at the pleading stage, plaintiff’s allegations of partial performance and equitable estoppel as a basis for preventing defendants from invoking the no oral modification clause of the parties’ agreement. Similarly, plaintiff sufficiently pled a “willful default” by defendants that would entitle plaintiff, under the written agreement, to specific performance, and not just a return of its down payment. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 460, 19 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2bsurrey-llc-v-20-east-76th-street-owner-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack