Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 666, 765 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 666 (Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc.) 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

Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 666, 765 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 25, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed since there is no triable issue as to whether the parties orally agreed to bind themselves to a contract giving plaintiff the exclusive rights to develop certain technology for which defendants held licensing rights from the United States Department of Energy. The record discloses that material terms, including pricing, the ramifications of the Department of Energy’s potential exercise of “walk-in” rights, and insurance and indemnification provisions, were never agreed upon, and without definiteness as to such terms, there could have been no contract (see Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 25, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed since there is no triable issue as to whether the parties orally agreed to bind themselves to a contract giving plaintiff the exclusive rights to develop certain technology for which defendants held licensing rights from the United States Department of Energy. The record discloses that material terms, including pricing, the ramifications of the Department of Energy’s potential exercise of “walk-in” rights, and insurance and indemnification provisions, were never agreed upon, and without definiteness as to such terms, there could have been no contract (see Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 666, 765 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-associated-universities-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack