From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CALKA v. CHUU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 2000
271 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 11, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 22, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's first cause of action for specific performance and to vacate the notice of pendency, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Edward S. Kanbar, for plaintiff-appellant.

Leonard Grau, for defendants-respondents.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, MAZZARELLI, JJ.


The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action for specific performance since the contract for the sale of the condominium, never having been executed by the owner, was not binding upon him (see, Fatoullah v. Schneider, 103 A.D.2d 957). Moreover, even if the unexecuted contract had been ratified by the owner (see, Williams v. Cohn, 51 A.D.2d 1031), no evidence was presented that plaintiff was ready, willing and able to close title on November 1, 1997 (see, Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc. v. Cottontail Plaza, Inc., 60 N.Y.2d 997, 998).

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


Summaries of

CALKA v. CHUU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 2000
271 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

CALKA v. CHUU

Case Details

Full title:LISA CALKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUMI CHUU, ETC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 627

Citing Cases

Adams v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC

Plaintiffs also claim entitlement to specific performance of the Underwriting Agreement, and they seek an…