Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh

62 A.D.3d 954, 878 N.Y.S.2d 907

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a dock, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [955]*955Orange County (Giacomo, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that a condition precedent to the formation of a binding agreement was not met (cf. Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 20 AD3d 503, 504 [2005]; Bradenton Realty Corp. v United Artists Props. I Corp., 264 AD2d 405 [1999]; Grin v 345 E. 56th St. Owners, 212 AD2d 504 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, in effect, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a dock, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [955]*955Orange County (Giacomo, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that a condition precedent to the formation of a binding agreement was not met (cf. Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 20 AD3d 503, 504 [2005]; Bradenton Realty Corp. v United Artists Props. I Corp., 264 AD2d 405 [1999]; Grin v 345 E. 56th St. Owners, 212 AD2d 504 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh, 62 A.D.3d 954, 878 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

62 A.D.3d 954 (Joemark Enterprises, LLC v. City of Newburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related