From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salm v. Sammito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1985
111 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 17, 1985

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


Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to defendant Sammito. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to defendant Sammito.

Since plaintiff's contract with defendant Sammito was subject to a lease containing a right of first refusal at the same price and on the same terms, the tenant's exercise of that right by execution of an identical contract made plaintiff's contract void and unenforceable. The fact that the terms of the sale changed somewhat at closing does not reinstate plaintiff's contract ( see, Bullock v. Cutting, 155 App. Div. 825).

Furthermore, since plaintiff was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the lease, she may not use it to enforce her contract right ( see, Flemington Natl. Bank Trust Co. v Domler Leasing Corp., 65 A.D.2d 29, affd 48 N.Y.2d 678). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Neihoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Salm v. Sammito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1985
111 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Salm v. Sammito

Case Details

Full title:EDITH SALM, Appellant, v. EDWARD A. SAMMITO, Respondent, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Montaperto Ltd. v. Liu

Putative buyers or assignees of a lease who "were neither parties to nor intended beneficiaries of the lease"…

Schibuk v. Panorama Flight Service, Inc.

However, the record indicates that the defendant's allegation is based on hearsay and thus is insufficient to…