St. Paul's Realty Corp. v. Huan Jen Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Paul's Realty Corp. v. Huan Jen Chin

133 A.D.2d 450, 519 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 28, 1987·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract for 4;he sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated August 26, 1986, which, inter alia, denied its motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses and for summary judgment, and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Queens County, that the memorandum relied upon by the plaintiff does not comply with the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). The memorandum, which included the notation that "[f]urther details will be developed by two parties’ lawyers in 10 days”, clearly indicated an intent to later fix and formalize missing terms and thus renders the memorandum insufficient (see, Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186, 188-189; Birnhak v Vaccaro, 47 AD2d 915, 916). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract for 4;he sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated August 26, 1986, which, inter alia, denied its motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses and for summary judgment, and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Queens County, that the memorandum relied upon by the plaintiff does not comply with the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]). The memorandum, which included the notation that "[f]urther details will be developed by two parties’ lawyers in 10 days”, clearly indicated an intent to later fix and formalize missing terms and thus renders the memorandum insufficient (see, Read v Henzel, 67 AD2d 186, 188-189; Birnhak v Vaccaro, 47 AD2d 915, 916). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

St. Paul's Realty Corp. v. Huan Jen Chin, 133 A.D.2d 450, 519 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

133 A.D.2d 450 (St. Paul's Realty Corp. v. Huan Jen Chin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related