LaRuffa v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaRuffa v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

260 A.D.2d 299, 689 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4380

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

DecidedApril 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 299 (LaRuffa v. Fleet Bank, N.A.) 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

LaRuffa v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 260 A.D.2d 299, 689 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 19, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint, seeking damages for breach of an alleged agreement to assign a mortgage to plaintiff Continental Capital Corporation, was properly dismissed because there was no enforceable agreement to that effect between the parties. Indeed, in a preliminary letter agreement, the parties explicitly stated their intention not to be bound to any “understanding or agreement” until the terms were reduced to a writing signed by all of the parties. No such signed writing was ever executed and there was, accordingly, no binding contract requiring the mortgage assignment (see, Scheck v Francis, 26 NY2d 466; R.G. Group v Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F2d 69, 74). We note in this last connection that the letter written by the attorney purporting to represent the mortgagor and guarantor of the loan, and the unsigned memorandum of the attorney representing the bank, do not contain all of the essential terms of the proposed assignment, and are insufficient, in any event, to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, 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 (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 19, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint, seeking damages for breach of an alleged agreement to assign a mortgage to plaintiff Continental Capital Corporation, was properly dismissed because there was no enforceable agreement to that effect between the parties. Indeed, in a preliminary letter agreement, the parties explicitly stated their intention not to be bound to any “understanding or agreement” until the terms were reduced to a writing signed by all of the parties. No such signed writing was ever executed and there was, accordingly, no binding contract requiring the mortgage assignment (see, Scheck v Francis, 26 NY2d 466; R.G. Group v Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F2d 69, 74). We note in this last connection that the letter written by the attorney purporting to represent the mortgagor and guarantor of the loan, and the unsigned memorandum of the attorney representing the bank, do not contain all of the essential terms of the proposed assignment, and are insufficient, in any event, to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 299, 689 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laruffa-v-fleet-bank-na-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack