From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

South Liberty Realty Corp. v. Mercury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1998-07078

Argued February 4, 2002.

March 18, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated June 26, 1998, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue, and, upon reargument, (1), in effect, denied their motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint, and (2) granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff to the extent of dismissing their affirmative defenses of the Statute of Frauds and the Statute of Limitations.

Fischer Weisinger Caliguire Porter Pierce, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (Jay D. Fischer of counsel), for appellants.

Bring Savad, Nanuet, N.Y. (Paul Savad and Susan Corcoran Cooper of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue (cf., Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 567-568; CPLR 2221).

We agree that the plaintiff is not barred by the Statute of Frauds from proving an oral modification to the parties' purchase agreement by operation of, inter alia, the doctrine of partial performance. Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the plaintiff's acts were unequivocally referable to the modification (see, Rose v. Spa Realty Assos., 42 N.Y.2d 338, 343-344, 345). In particular, we note that the deferral of payment of $150,000 of the purchase price at closing of title can only be explained by reference to the oral agreement to modify, and is not compatible with any provision of the written agreement (see, Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664; Taylor v. Blaylock Partners, 240 A.D.2d 289, 290). Of course, it remains to be determined upon trial whether the defendants' duty to make this payment has yet arisen.

The defendants' remaining contentions do not warrant any relief herein.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

South Liberty Realty Corp. v. Mercury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

South Liberty Realty Corp. v. Mercury

Case Details

Full title:SOUTH LIBERTY REALTY CORPORATION, respondent, v. GARY MERCURY, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 579

Citing Cases

Samet v. Binson

2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in…

Rottenberg v. The Alexander Court Condo.

A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see…