Fuller v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. Martin

109 A.D.2d 1060, 487 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47533

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1985

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 1060 (Fuller v. Martin) 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

Fuller v. Martin, 109 A.D.2d 1060, 487 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This lawsuit involves two interdependent agreements, one for the sale of an automobile dealership and the other for the sale of realty used for the dealership. The contract for the sale of real estate provided that the balance of payments would be made “pursuant to an Installment Land Contract, the terms and details of which are to be agreed to by the parties. If the parties fail to agree to such terms and conditions within 30 days of * * * this offer, this offer shall be deemed revoked”.

The Fuller parties fail to raise a triable issue of fact regarding compliance with this condition precedent. Rather they argue that the closing date was postponed from December 28, 1982 until mid-January 1983, at which time they were ready, willing and able to sell; that there was an indemnity provision in the land contract; and that the parties waived the 30-day limitation. [1061]*1061Since the parties failed to agree within the 30-day period, we deem the offer terminated on December 4, 1982. Later negotiations are irrelevant. Fuller’s arguments that the 30-day period was waived and that they were denied discovery were not raised below and were not preserved for review (see, Lindlots Realty Corp. v County of Suffolk, 278 NY 45, 52; Arvuantides v Arvuantides, 106 AD2d 853). Thus, summary judgment dismissing Fuller’s complaint was proper because Fuller’s showing to defeat the motion “lacked the evidentiary facts on which a meritorious defense could be made out” (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231). (Appeal from order and amended order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Fischer, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This lawsuit involves two interdependent agreements, one for the sale of an automobile dealership and the other for the sale of realty used for the dealership. The contract for the sale of real estate provided that the balance of payments would be made “pursuant to an Installment Land Contract, the terms and details of which are to be agreed to by the parties. If the parties fail to agree to such terms and conditions within 30 days of * * * this offer, this offer shall be deemed revoked”.

The Fuller parties fail to raise a triable issue of fact regarding compliance with this condition precedent. Rather they argue that the closing date was postponed from December 28, 1982 until mid-January 1983, at which time they were ready, willing and able to sell; that there was an indemnity provision in the land contract; and that the parties waived the 30-day limitation. [1061]*1061Since the parties failed to agree within the 30-day period, we deem the offer terminated on December 4, 1982. Later negotiations are irrelevant. Fuller’s arguments that the 30-day period was waived and that they were denied discovery were not raised below and were not preserved for review (see, Lindlots Realty Corp. v County of Suffolk, 278 NY 45, 52; Arvuantides v Arvuantides, 106 AD2d 853). Thus, summary judgment dismissing Fuller’s complaint was proper because Fuller’s showing to defeat the motion “lacked the evidentiary facts on which a meritorious defense could be made out” (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231). (Appeal from order and amended order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Fischer, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 1060, 487 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-martin-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack