National Patent Development Corp. v. Yanoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Patent Development Corp. v. Yanoff

57 A.D.2d 549, 393 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11495

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

DecidedApril 4, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 549 (National Patent Development Corp. v. Yanoff) 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

National Patent Development Corp. v. Yanoff, 57 A.D.2d 549, 393 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to declare whether a certain document constitutes a binding lease, defendant I. Arthur Yanoff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1976, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that "Exhibit B is not a binding lease and that no binding lease has been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant I. Arthur Yanoff.” Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find no triable issue of fact for submission to a jury with regard to the letter which is alleged to constitute a binding lease, and the formal lease tendered by defendant Yanoff. Whether that letter is construed to be an offer, or an agreement upon condition precedent that a formal integration incorporating the terms previously agreed upon be tendered by appellant, his performance, which varied and supplemented the terms previously agreed upon, leads to the conclusion that a binding lease has not been executed. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to declare whether a certain document constitutes a binding lease, defendant I. Arthur Yanoff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1976, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that "Exhibit B is not a binding lease and that no binding lease has been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant I. Arthur Yanoff.” Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find no triable issue of fact for submission to a jury with regard to the letter which is alleged to constitute a binding lease, and the formal lease tendered by defendant Yanoff. Whether that letter is construed to be an offer, or an agreement upon condition precedent that a formal integration incorporating the terms previously agreed upon be tendered by appellant, his performance, which varied and supplemented the terms previously agreed upon, leads to the conclusion that a binding lease has not been executed. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 549, 393 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-patent-development-corp-v-yanoff-nyappdiv-1977.