Bergman v. Krausz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bergman v. Krausz

19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525

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

DecidedJune 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 186 (Bergman v. Krausz) 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

Bergman v. Krausz, 19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the cause of action for specific performance of an alleged agreement by defendants to sell their shares in two corporations jointly owned by the parties. Inasmuch as the transaction involved the sale of stock in corporations whose sole asset was a commercial building, the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]) was ap[187]*187plicable (Pritsker v Kazan, 132 AD2d 507 [1987]; cf. Sabin-Goldberg v Horn, 179 AD2d 462 [1992]). The letter relied on by plaintiffs was unenforceable since it did not state the essential terms of a complete agreement (see O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369 [1993]), and there was no indication that the signatory had the authority to act on defendants’ behalf (see Bowling v Pedzik, 302 AD2d 343 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the cause of action for specific performance of an alleged agreement by defendants to sell their shares in two corporations jointly owned by the parties. Inasmuch as the transaction involved the sale of stock in corporations whose sole asset was a commercial building, the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]) was ap[187]*187plicable (Pritsker v Kazan, 132 AD2d 507 [1987]; cf. Sabin-Goldberg v Horn, 179 AD2d 462 [1992]). The letter relied on by plaintiffs was unenforceable since it did not state the essential terms of a complete agreement (see O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369 [1993]), and there was no indication that the signatory had the authority to act on defendants’ behalf (see Bowling v Pedzik, 302 AD2d 343 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergman-v-krausz-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack