Offit v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Offit v. Herman

132 A.D.3d 409, 16 N.Y.S.3d 737

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2015

Docket15757 157768/14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 409 (Offit v. Herman) 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

Offit v. Herman, 132 A.D.3d 409, 16 N.Y.S.3d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contend that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that they and defendant signed was a “Type II” agreement under federal case law, requiring defendant to negotiate in good faith to finalize a settlement of various lawsuits among the parties. The New York Court of Appeals has rejected “the rigid classification into ‘Types’ ” in favor of asking “whether the agreement contemplated the negotiation of later agreements and if the consummation of those agreements was a precondi *410 tion to a party’s performance” (IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., 13 NY3d 209, 213 n 2 [2009]). The MOU says that the parties have reached an “agreement in principle, subject to documentation acceptable to the parties and court approval.” Moreover, in prior motion practice, counsel for plaintiff Rosemarie Herman admitted that the MOU was merely “an agreement to agree.” Thus, the MOU is not an enforceable contract, and the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint (see e.g. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 70 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 704 [2010]; Richbell Info. Servs. v Jupiter Partners, 309 AD2d 288 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 15, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contend that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that they and defendant signed was a “Type II” agreement under federal case law, requiring defendant to negotiate in good faith to finalize a settlement of various lawsuits among the parties. The New York Court of Appeals has rejected “the rigid classification into ‘Types’ ” in favor of asking “whether the agreement contemplated the negotiation of later agreements and if the consummation of those agreements was a precondi *410 tion to a party’s performance” (IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., 13 NY3d 209, 213 n 2 [2009]). The MOU says that the parties have reached an “agreement in principle, subject to documentation acceptable to the parties and court approval.” Moreover, in prior motion practice, counsel for plaintiff Rosemarie Herman admitted that the MOU was merely “an agreement to agree.” Thus, the MOU is not an enforceable contract, and the motion court correctly dismissed the complaint (see e.g. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 70 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 704 [2010]; Richbell Info. Servs. v Jupiter Partners, 309 AD2d 288 [1st Dept 2003]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 409, 16 N.Y.S.3d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/offit-v-herman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack