Central Eight Realty LLC v. Rein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Eight Realty LLC v. Rein

39 A.D.3d 427, 834 N.Y.S.2d 172

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

DecidedApril 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 427 (Central Eight Realty LLC v. Rein) 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

Central Eight Realty LLC v. Rein, 39 A.D.3d 427, 834 N.Y.S.2d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered March 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion [428]*428for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that no written renovation agreement obligating defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse sold by them to plaintiff was ever executed. This circumstance together with the transactional documents relied upon by defendant sellers on their summary judgment motion, which documents specifically contemplated that the parties might never finalize a renovation agreement, and included numerous waivers by plaintiff of its rights against the sellers with respect to the condition of the transferred townhouse and personal property, demonstrated, prima facie, that there had been no agreement by defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not in response to this showing meet its burden to come forward with evidence raising a triable issue as to the existence of the alleged renovation agreement (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the grant of summary judgment was proper.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered March 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion [428]*428for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that no written renovation agreement obligating defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse sold by them to plaintiff was ever executed. This circumstance together with the transactional documents relied upon by defendant sellers on their summary judgment motion, which documents specifically contemplated that the parties might never finalize a renovation agreement, and included numerous waivers by plaintiff of its rights against the sellers with respect to the condition of the transferred townhouse and personal property, demonstrated, prima facie, that there had been no agreement by defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not in response to this showing meet its burden to come forward with evidence raising a triable issue as to the existence of the alleged renovation agreement (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the grant of summary judgment was proper.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 427, 834 N.Y.S.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-eight-realty-llc-v-rein-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack