May v. Wilcox

182 A.D.2d 939, 582 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 939 (May v. Wilcox) 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
May v. Wilcox, 182 A.D.2d 939, 582 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered May 30, 1991 in Tompkins County, which granted defendant William R. Wilcox’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that there was not an enforceable contract between the parties. In order to create a binding contract there must be a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of the agreement (see, Kentucky Fried Chicken v Rockland Lease [940]*940Funding Corp., 173 AD2d 1066). In this case, the purchase offer stated that the conveyance was to include all "built in items” and "all other items of equipment and personal property attached to the buildings”. As evidenced, however, by the ongoing correspondence between the parties’ attorneys as well as the parties’ discussions, there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the status of the commercial fixtures and property such as the printing press, public address system and fire extinguishers. Furthermore, the acceptance of the purchase offer was conditioned on the changes added to the agreement and thus constituted a counteroffer requiring plaintiffs’ acceptance (see, Chain Locations v T.I.M.E.-DC, 81 AD2d 993). Plaintiffs never initialed the changes on the agreement to indicate their acceptance. Under these circumstances, the writings in question failed to create a binding contract and Supreme Court’s award of summary judgment in favor of defendants must be upheld (see, Blakey v McMurray, 110 AD2d 998).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

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

Related

Tyler 679 Prop. LLC v. Eng
2024 NY Slip Op 33401(U) (NYC Civil Court, Kings, 2024)
PennyMac Corp v. Bongiovanni
2024 NY Slip Op 50452(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2024)
Fulginiti v. Fulginiti
127 A.D.3d 1382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Kolchins v. Evolution Markets, Inc.
128 A.D.3d 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sachs v. Zito
28 Misc. 3d 567 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Langer v. Dadabhoy
44 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Winiarski v. Duryea Associates, LLC
14 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Gui's Lumber & Home Center, Inc. v. Mader Construction Co.
13 A.D.3d 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Harper v. Rodriguez
272 A.D.2d 372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Franklin Pavkov Construction Co. v. Ultra Roof, Inc.
51 F. Supp. 2d 204 (N.D. New York, 1999)
International Paper Co. v. Suwyn
966 F. Supp. 246 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Health Plans, Inc. v. New York Life Insurance
898 F. Supp. 941 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D.2d 939, 582 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-wilcox-nyappdiv-1992.