Galesi v. Galesi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galesi v. Galesi

37 A.D.3d 249, 829 N.Y.S.2d 107

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 249 (Galesi v. Galesi) 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

Galesi v. Galesi, 37 A.D.3d 249, 829 N.Y.S.2d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered December 8, 2005, dismissing the complaint as against defendants Galesi and Elysium Energy, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 22, 2005, which granted defendants-respondents’ summary judgment motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Assuming that the alleged promise was made, it amounted to no more than an indefinite and unenforceable “agreement to agree” (see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 91 [1991]). Although plaintiffs presented evidence that the negotiating parties had agreed as to price and quantity, the exchange of drafts, further discussion, and the totality of the circumstances clearly showed that there was never a meeting of the minds on all essential terms (see Ross v Wu, 27 AD3d 237 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). Furthermore, judicial estoppel would bar recognition and enforcement of any such promise. Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 12 Misc 3d 1186(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52310(U) (2005).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered December 8, 2005, dismissing the complaint as against defendants Galesi and Elysium Energy, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 22, 2005, which granted defendants-respondents’ summary judgment motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Assuming that the alleged promise was made, it amounted to no more than an indefinite and unenforceable “agreement to agree” (see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 91 [1991]). Although plaintiffs presented evidence that the negotiating parties had agreed as to price and quantity, the exchange of drafts, further discussion, and the totality of the circumstances clearly showed that there was never a meeting of the minds on all essential terms (see Ross v Wu, 27 AD3d 237 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 713 [2006]). Furthermore, judicial estoppel would bar recognition and enforcement of any such promise. Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 12 Misc 3d 1186(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52310(U) (2005).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 249, 829 N.Y.S.2d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galesi-v-galesi-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack