From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Felicello v. Gandolfo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1989
147 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The contract between the parties provided in pertinent part that the "deed [would] recite a reservation/exception in favor of the grantor Rose Salatino of one (1) acre out of the premises to be conveyed." It further provided that the plaintiff was to assume all subdivision and other ancillary costs, and directed that the defendants were to cooperate with the plaintiff by signing any and all documents "necessary to enable the purchaser [the plaintiff] to subdivide the property for the purpose of conveying" the one-acre parcel. Under the circumstances of this case, including certain written admissions of the plaintiff, the parties clearly intended that the subdivision of the parcel was the plaintiff's responsibility. Thus the plaintiff, having failed to take any steps whatever to obtain subdivision approval, was not entitled to specific performance of the contract. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Felicello v. Gandolfo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 1989
147 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Felicello v. Gandolfo

Case Details

Full title:FRANK FELICELLO, SR., Appellant, v. ROSE GANDOLFO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
537 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Tomhannock, LLC v. Roustabout Resources, LLC

Such allegations, in our view, are sufficient to withstand Roustabout's motion to dismiss under CPLR…