Bakerhood, Inc. v. S.E.&K. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bakerhood, Inc. v. S.E.&K. Corp.

7 A.D.3d 397, 776 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969

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

DecidedMay 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 397 (Bakerhood, Inc. v. S.E.&K. Corp.) 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

Bakerhood, Inc. v. S.E.&K. Corp., 7 A.D.3d 397, 776 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2003, which, in an action by a commercial tenant to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a building sold by defendant sellers to defendant buyers, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to show that its failure to timely exercise its right of first refusal did not prejudice sellers, could result in a substantial forfeiture and should be excused because, upon learning that sellers had granted a right of first refusal to another tenant whose lease preexisted plaintiffs and who had exercised the right, plaintiff reasonably believed that its own right was illusory (see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 NY2d 392, 398-399 [1977]). The motion court also correctly held that, for present purposes, defendants must submit closing documents demonstrating that the building was in fact purchased on the terms stated in the offer sent to plaintiff. If there were a variance, plaintiff may be entitled to rescission. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2003, which, in an action by a commercial tenant to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a building sold by defendant sellers to defendant buyers, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to show that its failure to timely exercise its right of first refusal did not prejudice sellers, could result in a substantial forfeiture and should be excused because, upon learning that sellers had granted a right of first refusal to another tenant whose lease preexisted plaintiffs and who had exercised the right, plaintiff reasonably believed that its own right was illusory (see J.N.A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 NY2d 392, 398-399 [1977]). The motion court also correctly held that, for present purposes, defendants must submit closing documents demonstrating that the building was in fact purchased on the terms stated in the offer sent to plaintiff. If there were a variance, plaintiff may be entitled to rescission. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 397, 776 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakerhood-inc-v-sek-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack