Cosmolite Manufacturing Co. v. Theodus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cosmolite Manufacturing Co. v. Theodus

122 A.D.2d 246, 505 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59589

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 246 (Cosmolite Manufacturing Co. v. Theodus) 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

Cosmolite Manufacturing Co. v. Theodus, 122 A.D.2d 246, 505 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barn-brick, J.), dated April 5, 1985, which, inter alia, dismissed its complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that he properly exercised an option to buy contained in his lease agreement with the defendant, and that the defendant wrongfully refused to honor their contract.

In order for a contract for the sale of property to be enforceable, "it must be sufficiently certain and specific so that what was promised can be ascertained” (Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109). In the instant agreement, the parties provided that the tenant could purchase the premises "for $100,000.00 with terms to be arranged at any time during the said lease”. The parties never arranged such terms. Consequently, a material element was omitted from their agreement (see, Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 NY2d 250, 252; Blakey v McMurray, 110 AD2d 998; Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186), and the purchase option is unenforceable (Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, supra).

Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barn-brick, J.), dated April 5, 1985, which, inter alia, dismissed its complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that he properly exercised an option to buy contained in his lease agreement with the defendant, and that the defendant wrongfully refused to honor their contract.

In order for a contract for the sale of property to be enforceable, "it must be sufficiently certain and specific so that what was promised can be ascertained” (Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109). In the instant agreement, the parties provided that the tenant could purchase the premises "for $100,000.00 with terms to be arranged at any time during the said lease”. The parties never arranged such terms. Consequently, a material element was omitted from their agreement (see, Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 NY2d 250, 252; Blakey v McMurray, 110 AD2d 998; Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186), and the purchase option is unenforceable (Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, supra).

Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 246, 505 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosmolite-manufacturing-co-v-theodus-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack