Technology Finance Group, Inc. v. Grumman Data Systems Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Technology Finance Group, Inc. v. Grumman Data Systems Corp.

159 A.D.2d 385, 553 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2902

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1989, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action by plaintiff Technology Finance Group, Inc. against defendant Grumman Data Systems Corporation for breach of an alleged agreement to lease two IBM computer systems from plaintiff Technology for a period of five years at a combined rental in excess of $10,000,000, we find that the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of a binding contract between the parties.

Specifically, the correspondence exchanged by the parties expressed an intention not to be contractually bound unless certain specific documents were executed and until their preliminary negotiations had culminated in the execution of a formal lease agreement. The record reveals that neither of these prerequisites for contractual liability was, in fact, satisfied (Beck v New York News, 61 NY2d 620; Scheck v Francis, 26 NY2d 466, 469; Brause v Goldman, 10 AD2d 328, 332, affd 9 NY2d 620). Concur—Ross, J. R, Carro, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1989, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action by plaintiff Technology Finance Group, Inc. against defendant Grumman Data Systems Corporation for breach of an alleged agreement to lease two IBM computer systems from plaintiff Technology for a period of five years at a combined rental in excess of $10,000,000, we find that the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of a binding contract between the parties.

Specifically, the correspondence exchanged by the parties expressed an intention not to be contractually bound unless certain specific documents were executed and until their preliminary negotiations had culminated in the execution of a formal lease agreement. The record reveals that neither of these prerequisites for contractual liability was, in fact, satisfied (Beck v New York News, 61 NY2d 620; Scheck v Francis, 26 NY2d 466, 469; Brause v Goldman, 10 AD2d 328, 332, affd 9 NY2d 620). Concur—Ross, J. R, Carro, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Technology Finance Group, Inc. v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., 159 A.D.2d 385, 553 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

159 A.D.2d 385 (Technology Finance Group, Inc. v. Grumman Data Systems Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related