Transamerica Realty, Ltd. v. Winokur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Transamerica Realty, Ltd. v. Winokur

248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 250 (Transamerica Realty, Ltd. v. Winokur) 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

Transamerica Realty, Ltd. v. Winokur, 248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered September 19, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the consideration for the contract at issue — proprietary information regarding the premises — was given prior to the execution of the agreement. Since the past consideration is not expressed in the agreement, and since “[i]n the absence of a writing that can be understood without dependence upon extrinsic evidence and that clearly describes the consideration, a promise derived from past consideration is simply not actionable” (Clark v Bank of N. Y., 185 AD2d 138, 140-141, appeal withdrawn 81 NY2d 760; General Obligations Law § 5-1105), the court properly dismissed plaintiffs breach of contract claim. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered September 19, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the consideration for the contract at issue — proprietary information regarding the premises — was given prior to the execution of the agreement. Since the past consideration is not expressed in the agreement, and since “[i]n the absence of a writing that can be understood without dependence upon extrinsic evidence and that clearly describes the consideration, a promise derived from past consideration is simply not actionable” (Clark v Bank of N. Y., 185 AD2d 138, 140-141, appeal withdrawn 81 NY2d 760; General Obligations Law § 5-1105), the court properly dismissed plaintiffs breach of contract claim. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/transamerica-realty-ltd-v-winokur-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack