The motion court correctly found that the holder of the right of first refusal had exercised its refusal right in timely manner, and that, although the terms of the sale to such holder were not identical to those contained in the subject contract, specific performance was not warranted where the total substantive value of the holder's offer was at least equivalent, if not better, than what defendant would have received from plaintiff (cf., Salm v Sammito,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
34TH & 7TH AVE., L. L. C. v. 152 W. 34TH STREET, INC.
269 A.D.2d 153 (2000)
701 N.Y.S.2d 903
34TH & 7TH AVE., L. L. C., Appellant, v. 152 W. 34TH STREET, INC., as Subsidiary of PRINCE MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD., Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided February 3, 2000.
Decided February 3, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.