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

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 450 (St. Paul's Realty Corp. v. Huan Jen Chin) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 450, 519 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-pauls-realty-corp-v-huan-jen-chin-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack