Sehati v. Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sehati v. Greenberg

292 A.D.2d 587, 739 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 587 (Sehati v. Greenberg) 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

Sehati v. Greenberg, 292 A.D.2d 587, 739 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered June 21, 2000, which, upon an order of the same court, dated April 18, 2000, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, directed specific performance of the contract of sale.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the binder in question sufficiently set forth the essential terms so as to constitute an enforceable agreement (see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Century 21 Volpe Realty v Jhong Kim, 231 AD2d 667; O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369, 370; Birnhak v Vaccaro, 47 AD2d 915, 916).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (cf. Checkla v Stone Meadow Homes, 280 AD2d 510; O’Brien v West, supra at 370). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered June 21, 2000, which, upon an order of the same court, dated April 18, 2000, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, directed specific performance of the contract of sale.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the binder in question sufficiently set forth the essential terms so as to constitute an enforceable agreement (see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Century 21 Volpe Realty v Jhong Kim, 231 AD2d 667; O’Brien v West, 199 AD2d 369, 370; Birnhak v Vaccaro, 47 AD2d 915, 916).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (cf. Checkla v Stone Meadow Homes, 280 AD2d 510; O’Brien v West, supra at 370). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 587, 739 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sehati-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack