From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loftain v. Gabis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-00283, 2004-02534.

Decided April 5, 2004.

In an action for specific performance of a binder agreement for the purchase of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated December 2, 2002, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) stated portions of a judgment of the same court entered January 24, 2003, which, upon the order, inter alia, directed the defendant to convey to the plaintiffs title to the premises in accordance with the terms of the subject agreement. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed to also be a notice of appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[c]).

Schwarz Black, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Simon Schwarz of counsel), for appellant.

Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Patrick McCormick and Stacey Ramis Nigro of counsel), for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to convey to the plaintiffs title to the subject premises in accordance with the terms of the binder agreement, as that agreement satisfied the statute of frauds, and therefor, was enforceable ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Sehati v. Greenberg, 292 A.D.2d 587; Villano v. G C Homes, 46 A.D.2d 907).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Loftain v. Gabis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Loftain v. Gabis

Case Details

Full title:GLENN LOFTAIN, respondents, v. STEPHEN GABIS, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 368