From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1992
182 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the appellant's time to transfer his interest in the property known as 294 East 45th Street, Brooklyn, to the plaintiff is extended to 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

In its decision with respect to equitable distribution of the parties' property, the court stated that a certain piece of property owned by the parties, 294 East 45th Street, Brooklyn, was to be sold (Jones v Jones, 144 Misc.2d 295, 306). The court stated: "The parties shall equally divide the net proceeds of the sale of the property thereby permitting each to have sizable liquid assets in addition to the other nonliquid property. However, in light of the fact that both parties seek to retain this property both shall have the right of first refusal as against any bona fide purchaser" (Jones v Jones, supra, at 306).

Before the parties submitted the judgment of divorce to the court for signature, the husband found a buyer for the property, and the wife exercised her right of first refusal. The husband thereafter refused to convey his interest in the property to the wife. Subsequently, the judgment was signed, and the wife moved to compel the husband to transfer his interest in the property to her. The husband claims that the wife could not validly exercise her right of first refusal before the judgment was signed. We find the husband's argument to be disingenuous. It was he who, in reliance upon the court's decision, obtained a buyer for the property. Now, apparently unsatisfied with the price obtained from that buyer, and faced with prospective buyers who might pay more for the property, he seeks to disavow his earlier offer on the basis of a technicality he himself disregarded. We cannot countenance such a result, and find that he is estopped from asserting such a claim. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1992
182 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Jones v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:AUDREY JONES, Respondent, v. ROMEO JONES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 13, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 266

Citing Cases

Ostrowska v. Ostrowski

Thereafter, the named real estate broker received an offer in the sum of $470,000 and recommended acceptance…