Barlia v. Murcott Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barlia v. Murcott Realty Corp.

41 A.D.3d 752, 839 N.Y.S.2d 200

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 752 (Barlia v. Murcott Realty 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

Barlia v. Murcott Realty Corp., 41 A.D.3d 752, 839 N.Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[753]*753In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option agreement for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered August 24, 2006, which, among other things, denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendant established that the granting of an easement was an essential term of the alleged agreement. Since the parties never agreed to the nature and extent of the easement, the alleged agreement was unenforceable (see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109 [1981]; Red Hook Marble, Inc. v Herskowitz & Rosenberg, 15 AD3d 560, 561 [2005]; Danton Constr. Corp. v Bonner, 173 AD2d 759, 759-760 [1991]). Since, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the court correctly granted the defendant’s cross motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

[753]*753In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option agreement for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered August 24, 2006, which, among other things, denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendant established that the granting of an easement was an essential term of the alleged agreement. Since the parties never agreed to the nature and extent of the easement, the alleged agreement was unenforceable (see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109 [1981]; Red Hook Marble, Inc. v Herskowitz & Rosenberg, 15 AD3d 560, 561 [2005]; Danton Constr. Corp. v Bonner, 173 AD2d 759, 759-760 [1991]). Since, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the court correctly granted the defendant’s cross motion (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 752, 839 N.Y.S.2d 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlia-v-murcott-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack