Terranova v. Secured Capital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Terranova v. Secured Capital Corp.

250 A.D.2d 835, 673 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6019

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 835 (Terranova v. Secured Capital Corp.) 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

Terranova v. Secured Capital Corp., 250 A.D.2d 835, 673 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to convey real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a contract to convey real property. The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant’s contention that the contract was unenforceable because it failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds insofar as it did not set a purchase price for the property if the property were to be sold after June 30, 1996. The contract met the requirements of General Obligations Law § 5-703 (2) because it was in writing, expressed the consideration to be paid for the property prior to June 30, 1996, and was signed by the party to be charged. Although the contract failed to set forth a price for the property after June 30, 1996, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant deliberately refused to cooperate in obtaining subdivision approval as required by the agreement and thereby prevented her from completing the transaction before the deadline. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and McGinity, 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 convey real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a contract to convey real property. The Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant’s contention that the contract was unenforceable because it failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds insofar as it did not set a purchase price for the property if the property were to be sold after June 30, 1996. The contract met the requirements of General Obligations Law § 5-703 (2) because it was in writing, expressed the consideration to be paid for the property prior to June 30, 1996, and was signed by the party to be charged. Although the contract failed to set forth a price for the property after June 30, 1996, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant deliberately refused to cooperate in obtaining subdivision approval as required by the agreement and thereby prevented her from completing the transaction before the deadline. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 835, 673 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terranova-v-secured-capital-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack