From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorkin v. Lehrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1985
114 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 18, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Order modified, on the law, by, upon searching the record, deleting the provision thereof denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and by substituting therefor a provision granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on their cause of action for specific performance of the contract of sale, and that cause of action is severed. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiffs, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The parties executed a contract for the sale to plaintiffs of the shares allocated to defendant's apartment, which shares defendant would have had the right to purchase as soon as the building's conversion to cooperative ownership was completed. Although defendant was not technically the owner of the shares at the time of their contract, her agreement to sell them included an implied agreement to purchase them as soon as possible. Defendant has since purchased those shares.

No trial is required to determine the terms of the contract; defendant is clearly in breach thereof, and there is no issue as to whether plaintiffs are ready, willing, and able to perform. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the contract. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sorkin v. Lehrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1985
114 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Sorkin v. Lehrer

Case Details

Full title:NATASHA SORKIN et al., Respondents, v. KAY LEHRER, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Harper v. Sealy

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff demonstrated that she…