From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kniffen v. Kniffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 29, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The alleged contract was for the purchase of an interest in real property and the writings of the parties did not sufficiently meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds ( see, General Obligations Law § 5-703; Rouzani v Rapp, 203 A.D.2d 446). Further, it is clear from the writings that the parties did not intend to be bound until a formal contract was executed ( see, Rouzani v Rapp, supra; Tebbutt v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 124 A.D.2d 266).

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kniffen v. Kniffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Kniffen v. Kniffen

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE J. KNIFFEN, Appellant, v. BARBARA B. KNIFFEN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 453

Citing Cases

Venture Manufacturing (Singapore) Ltd. v. Matco Group, Inc.

Defendants appeal from, among other things, a grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. Notably, the…

RAJ Acquisition Corp. v. Atamanuk

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach, JJ. In this action for specific performance…