Hallmark Construction Corp. v. Kemmerer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hallmark Construction Corp. v. Kemmerer

55 A.D.2d 637, 390 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15381

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 637 (Hallmark Construction Corp. v. Kemmerer) 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

Hallmark Construction Corp. v. Kemmerer, 55 A.D.2d 637, 390 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a certain agreement pertaining to real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered December 22, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of defendant and against it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term properly concluded that the "Deposit Agreement”, or binder, relied upon by plaintiff, did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds because it was incomplete and essential terms were left open for further negotiation. The evidence at the trial indicated that (1) the instrument did not provide the details of payment or the proposed terms of a purchase-money mortgage, (2) the agreement was silent as to whether portions of the premises were to be released from the lien of the purchase-money mortgage and, if so, under what terms and conditions, and (3) the description of defendant’s property was indefinite because of ambiguity as to (a) the amount of property defendant was to retain, (b) whether a three-car garage was included in the sale, (c) how access to the existing house was to be had from the street and (d) the size of the front, rear and side yards of said house. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a certain agreement pertaining to real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered December 22, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of defendant and against it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term properly concluded that the "Deposit Agreement”, or binder, relied upon by plaintiff, did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds because it was incomplete and essential terms were left open for further negotiation. The evidence at the trial indicated that (1) the instrument did not provide the details of payment or the proposed terms of a purchase-money mortgage, (2) the agreement was silent as to whether portions of the premises were to be released from the lien of the purchase-money mortgage and, if so, under what terms and conditions, and (3) the description of defendant’s property was indefinite because of ambiguity as to (a) the amount of property defendant was to retain, (b) whether a three-car garage was included in the sale, (c) how access to the existing house was to be had from the street and (d) the size of the front, rear and side yards of said house. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 637, 390 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallmark-construction-corp-v-kemmerer-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack