From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bright Beginnings Day Care v. Driftwood Day

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 2005
16 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

01860

March 14, 2005.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff Bright Beginnings Day Care, Inc., is the holder of a properly-exercised right of first refusal for the subject property, to recover damages, and for specific performance by the defendant Driftwood Day Camp, Inc., of its alleged obligation to honor the right of first refusal and sell the subject property to the plaintiff for the sum of $3,250,000, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated October 8, 2003, as denied its motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff does not hold an enforceable right of first refusal for the subject property.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants because the right of first refusal, which omitted essential terms and left terms open for future negotiation, was unenforceable under the statute of frauds and, in any event, was not sufficiently definite ( see Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v. 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 91; Simmonds v. Marshall, 292 AD2d 592; see also General Obligations Law § 5-703).


Summaries of

Bright Beginnings Day Care v. Driftwood Day

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 2005
16 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Bright Beginnings Day Care v. Driftwood Day

Case Details

Full title:BRIGHT BEGINNINGS DAY CARE, INC., Appellant, v. DRIFTWOOD DAY CAMP, INC.…

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

Date published: Mar 14, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 624

Citing Cases

Three Way Plumbing, Bath Design Ct. v. 61 Jericho

To satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the writing must identify the parties to the…

PJ Hanley's Corp. v. Esposito

the offer by a third party or buy the property at some other price set by a previously stipulated method'…