Agostino v. Soufer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Agostino v. Soufer

12 A.D.3d 204, 784 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13141

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 204 (Agostino v. Soufer) 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

Agostino v. Soufer, 12 A.D.3d 204, 784 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 23, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ amended and supplemental complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion insofar [205]*205as to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages and specific performance of an option to purchase defendant Soufer’s bid on certain real property. The option expired pursuant to its terms when plaintiffs failed to pay Soufer a bank or certified check in the amount of $337,757.42 on or before October 4, 1996. None of plaintiffs’ arguments overcome the well-established general principles governing option agreements, requiring strict compliance with terms setting forth the time and manner of an option’s exercise (see Tauber v Bankers Trust Co., 230 AD2d 312, 319 [1997]). No triable issue has been raised as to the existence of equities weighing in favor of permitting plaintiffs’ exercise of the expired option (see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc., 42 NY2d 392 [1977]).

We modify only insofar as to grant plaintiffs’ unopposed cross motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 23, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ amended and supplemental complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion insofar [205]*205as to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint seeking damages and specific performance of an option to purchase defendant Soufer’s bid on certain real property. The option expired pursuant to its terms when plaintiffs failed to pay Soufer a bank or certified check in the amount of $337,757.42 on or before October 4, 1996. None of plaintiffs’ arguments overcome the well-established general principles governing option agreements, requiring strict compliance with terms setting forth the time and manner of an option’s exercise (see Tauber v Bankers Trust Co., 230 AD2d 312, 319 [1997]). No triable issue has been raised as to the existence of equities weighing in favor of permitting plaintiffs’ exercise of the expired option (see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc., 42 NY2d 392 [1977]).

We modify only insofar as to grant plaintiffs’ unopposed cross motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaim. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 204, 784 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agostino-v-soufer-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack