From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baystone Equities v. Gerel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 2003
305 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

dismissing claim for specific performance of contracts for sale of real property because "the contracts, rationally construed, are not consistent with plaintiff's contention"

Summary of this case from Cari, LLC v. 415 Greenwich Fee Owner, LLC

Opinion

1174

May 20, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 10, 2002, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), on the ground of a defense supported by documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Glenn Backer, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kevin L. Smith, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach, Gonzalez, JJ.


While plaintiff's allegations in this action for, inter alia, specific performance of contracts for the sale of real property are, broadly construed, sufficient to withstand dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), they are nonetheless conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence and, accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) ( see Igarashi v. Higashi, 228 A.D.2d 128). Plaintiff purchaser concededly did not timely deliver the deposit required under the subject contracts. Although plaintiff maintains that the contracts were not terminable for this default, the contracts clearly provided that time was of the essence for plaintiff to meet its monetary obligations and, while plaintiff was accorded an extension of its time to deliver the additional deposit, time still remained of the essence. In addition, the contracts, rationally construed, are not consistent with plaintiff's contention that the five-day notice to cure contractually required of the seller as a condition of contract termination in certain circumstances was applicable where termination was predicated on nonpayment of the deposit. Finally, the documentary evidence renders untenable plaintiff's claim that the parties entered into a net lease agreement after the original contracts were terminated.

Motion seeking leave to expand record denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Baystone Equities v. Gerel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 2003
305 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

dismissing claim for specific performance of contracts for sale of real property because "the contracts, rationally construed, are not consistent with plaintiff's contention"

Summary of this case from Cari, LLC v. 415 Greenwich Fee Owner, LLC
Case details for

Baystone Equities v. Gerel Corp.

Case Details

Full title:BAYSTONE EQUITIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEREL CORPORATION, ET…

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

Date published: May 20, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 78

Citing Cases

Moskowitz v. Barocco Foods, Inc.

Dismissal of the complaint under C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(1) requires documentary evidence that conclusively…

RUBIN v. LUTFY

Where a written agreement unambiguously contradicts the allegations of a breach of contract cause of action,…