From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rahimzadeh v. M.A.C. Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06084

Submitted March 14, 2003.

April 14, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 16, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Scheyer Jellenik, Nesconset, N.Y. (Richard I. Scheyer of counsel), for appellant.

William J. Zaccaria, Great Neck, N.Y. (Thomas J. Burns of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A binder agreement for the sale of real property satisfies the statute of frauds and is subject to specific performance where the agreement identifies the parties and the subject property, recites all essential terms of a complete agreement, and is signed by the party to be charged (see O'Brien v. West, 199 A.D.2d 369, 370; Ramos v. Lido Home Sales Corp., 148 A.D.2d 598; Simmonds v. Marshall, 292 A.D.2d 592; Checkla v. Stone Meadow Homes, 280 A.D.2d 510). In addition, the binder agreement must include those essential terms customarily encountered in a real estate transaction (see Simmonds v. Marshall, supra; O'Brien v. West, supra).

Contrary to its contention, the defendant did not make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The subject agreement was signed by the party to be charged, identified the parties and the subject property, and set forth the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, and payment and financing terms. Thus, there exists an issue of fact as to whether such agreement satisfies the statute of frauds, and is, therefore, enforceable.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rahimzadeh v. M.A.C. Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 14, 2003
304 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Rahimzadeh v. M.A.C. Associates

Case Details

Full title:ABDOLLAH RAHIMZADEH, ET AL., respondents, v. M.A.C. ASSOCIATES, ETC.…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 159

Citing Cases

Omar v. Rozen

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary…

Walentas v. 35-45 Front Street Co.

The statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703) provides that "[a] contract to devise real…