Opinion
2001-05551
Submitted June 6, 2002
July 15, 2002.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of shares of a closely-held corporation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated May 22, 2001, which, among other things, granted the defendant's motion to confirm the Referee's report, recommending a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an enforceable agreement.
David A. Sears, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.
Rider, Weiner, Frankel Calhelha, P.C., New Windsor, N.Y. (Moacyr R. Calhelha of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The record supports the conclusion that the writings the plaintiff relied on to satisfy the statute of frauds (see UCC former § 8-319[a]) failed to establish that the parties agreed on certain essential terms of the alleged agreement (see Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48; Kobre v. Instrument Systems Corp., 54 A.D.2d 625, 626, affd 43 N.Y.2d 862). The record also supports the conclusion that the actions the plaintiff highlighted to apply the doctrine of part performance were not "unequivocally referable" to the alleged agreement (Anostario v. Vicinanzo, 59 N.Y.2d 662, 664; see Goldfinger v. Brown, 169 A.D.2d 702, 703). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the Referee's report (see Wilshire Credit Corp. v. 14 First St. Corp., 289 A.D.2d 229).
FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.