From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BMH Realty Ltd. v. 399 East 72nd Street Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 2, 1995
221 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 2, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


There is no merit to plaintiff's contention that the correspondence between the parties constituted a binding agreement. Indeed, the documents themselves make clear that the parties did not intend to be bound until a formal agreement was executed ( see, Brause v Goldman, 10 A.D.2d 328, 332-333, affd 9 N.Y.2d 620). Nor was defendant required to make a good faith effort to prepare and deliver a formal written agreement ( see, Bernstein v Felske, 143 A.D.2d 863, 865).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

BMH Realty Ltd. v. 399 East 72nd Street Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 2, 1995
221 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

BMH Realty Ltd. v. 399 East 72nd Street Owners, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BMH REALTY LTD., Doing Business as HELLER REALTY, Appellant, v. 399 EAST…

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

Date published: Nov 2, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 141

Citing Cases

Zohar v. 3 West 16th

The trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff's were not entitled to recovery under their first (breach…

Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street Inc.

" The letter that covered the draft was just as explicit, stating that "[t]he forwarding of this contract…