Knecht v. Horrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knecht v. Horrigan

290 A.D.2d 222, 736 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 222 (Knecht v. Horrigan) 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

Knecht v. Horrigan, 290 A.D.2d 222, 736 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action, seeking specific performance of an alleged contract to sell shares of stock in a cooperative corporation, was properly dismissed since there was no binding contract between the parties, plaintiff having unilaterally altered the contract sent her by defendant to provide that she was the only purchaser, when, in fact, the contract, as drafted by defendant’s counsel, provided, in accordance with defendant’s wishes, that his shares were to be sold in equal parts to both plaintiff and a second purchaser (see, Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 589-590).

[223]*223We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action, seeking specific performance of an alleged contract to sell shares of stock in a cooperative corporation, was properly dismissed since there was no binding contract between the parties, plaintiff having unilaterally altered the contract sent her by defendant to provide that she was the only purchaser, when, in fact, the contract, as drafted by defendant’s counsel, provided, in accordance with defendant’s wishes, that his shares were to be sold in equal parts to both plaintiff and a second purchaser (see, Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 589-590).

[223]*223We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 222, 736 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knecht-v-horrigan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack