Harper v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harper v. Rodriguez

272 A.D.2d 372, 707 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5115

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 372 (Harper v. Rodriguez) 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

Harper v. Rodriguez, 272 A.D.2d 372, 707 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that a binding contract was entered into between the parties for the sale of real property and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 7, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that no binding contract between the parties for the sale of real property was formed and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment, which was deposited into court pursuant to an order dated June 2, 1997.

The unilateral modifications to the residential contract of sale made by the defendants, the sellers, constituted a counteroffer, which was expressly rejected by the plaintiffs, the purchasers. Because there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term of the agreement, there was no binding contract, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment (see, Levi v Smith, 242 AD2d 564; May v Wilcox, 182 AD2d 939). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that a binding contract was entered into between the parties for the sale of real property and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 7, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that no binding contract between the parties for the sale of real property was formed and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment, which was deposited into court pursuant to an order dated June 2, 1997.

The unilateral modifications to the residential contract of sale made by the defendants, the sellers, constituted a counteroffer, which was expressly rejected by the plaintiffs, the purchasers. Because there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term of the agreement, there was no binding contract, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of their down payment (see, Levi v Smith, 242 AD2d 564; May v Wilcox, 182 AD2d 939). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 372, 707 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack