18 A.D.3d 640 (2005)

795 N.Y.S.2d 643


Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

May 16, 2005.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting the motion and directing the Nassau County Clerk to cancel the notice of pendency filed against the property designated on the North Hempstead tax map as Block 376, Section 2, Lots 9, 10, and 12, located in Great Neck and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the Nassau County Clerk is directed to reinstate the notice of pendency.

Pursuant to a written agreement executed by the parties on July 25, 2002 (hereinafter the agreement), the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant certain real property designated on the North Hempstead tax map as Block 376, Section 2, Lots 9, 10, and 12, located in Great Neck. The agreement required the plaintiff to pay a deposit upon signing, and an additional deposit within seven days on signing a "more detailed & supplemental contract." The supplemental contract was intended to address several collateral matters that were not addressed in the agreement. The defendant's attorney delivered to the plaintiff a proposed supplemental contract which did not address all of the collateral matters. When the plaintiff discovered a zoning restriction on the property, his attorney sent a letter to the defendant's attorney requesting a credit or a reduced purchase price. The letter also addressed the absence of the collateral matters from the proposed supplemental contract. The defendant's attorney responded with a letter in which he advised that the price reduction was not acceptable to the defendant, and demanded that the plaintiff make the additional contract deposit by September 3, 2002. The defendant allegedly refused to meet with the plaintiff to discuss the collateral matters.

By letter dated September 19, 2002, the plaintiff's attorney requested that the defendant's attorney return his call to schedule a closing date. By letter dated September 25, 2002, the plaintiff's attorney again requested that a closing be scheduled. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for specific performance of the agreement. The defendant moved, among other things, to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion on the ground that the agreement violated the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]).

"To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a writing must identify the parties, describe the subject matter, state all the essential terms of an agreement, and be signed by the party to be charged" (Urgo v. Patel, 297 A.D.2d 376, 377 [2002]). "That the parties anticipated the execution of a more formal contract would not impair the effectiveness of the writing if it, in fact, embodies all of the essential terms of the agreement" (160 Chambers St. Realty Corp. v Register of New York, 226 A.D.2d 606, 607 [1996]).

The agreement identified the parties, described the subject property, stated the time and terms of payment, established the closing date, and was subscribed by the parties to be charged. Accordingly, the agreement satisfied the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; Rahimzadeh v M.A.C. Assoc., 304 A.D.2d 636 [2003]; 160 Chambers St. Realty Corp. v Register of New York, supra; Healy v Gumienny, 142 A.D.2d 629 [1988]; cf., Sabetfard v Smith, 306 A.D.2d 265 [2003]). The matters that were to be included in the supplemental contract were not material terms, and the fact that they remained unresolved did not vitiate the parties' meeting of the minds as expressed in the executed agreement.

However, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied because the defendant raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff repudiated the agreement or failed to comply with all of his obligations thereunder (see G.G.F. Props. v Yu Mi Hong, 284 A.D.2d 427 [2001]; Stewart v Sternberg, 137 A.D.2d 592 [1988]).


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

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.

Citing Cases