Rodman v. Aivagedis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodman v. Aivagedis

123 A.D.2d 429, 506 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60185

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 429 (Rodman v. Aivagedis) 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

Rodman v. Aivagedis, 123 A.D.2d 429, 506 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a contract vendee for specific performance of a contract to convey title to real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated December 10, 1985, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

The plaintiffs rely upon a memorandum of an alleged contract to purchase property owned by the defendant. The memorandum, executed by the defendant, neither identified the purchaser nor sufficiently described the property in question. To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum "must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter and state all the essential and material terms of the agreement” (Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186, 188; (Villano v G & C Homes, 46 AD2d 907, appeal dismissed 36 NY2d 918, lv dismissed 40 NY2d 959). The instant document fails to do so. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a contract vendee for specific performance of a contract to convey title to real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated December 10, 1985, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

The plaintiffs rely upon a memorandum of an alleged contract to purchase property owned by the defendant. The memorandum, executed by the defendant, neither identified the purchaser nor sufficiently described the property in question. To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the memorandum "must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter and state all the essential and material terms of the agreement” (Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186, 188; (Villano v G & C Homes, 46 AD2d 907, appeal dismissed 36 NY2d 918, lv dismissed 40 NY2d 959). The instant document fails to do so. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 429, 506 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodman-v-aivagedis-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack