From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tonkery v. Martina

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 11, 1991
78 N.Y.2d 893 (N.Y. 1991)

Opinion

Decided June 11, 1991

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Henry J. Scudder, J.

Kevin P. Bradley for appellant.

David A. White for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The parties signed a three-year option agreement for the purchase of real property. They agreed that the purchase price was to be either the sum offered by a bona fide third-party purchaser, or, in the alternative, the price fixed by three appraisers. The option also set forth the manner in which the appraisers were to be selected. The appellant argues that this option is indefinite and unenforceable because it does not specify how the appraisers are to determine the amount of the purchase price.

Based on our holdings in Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry Warren Corp. ( 74 N.Y.2d 475) and Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp. ( 78 N.Y.2d 88 [decided today]), we disagree and hold that the option at issue here is not void for indefiniteness. The terms of the option indicate clearly that the parties both intended to commit the calculation of price to a third party and agreed to be bound by the result. The parties never agreed to agree on a purchase price in the future, but instead tied the price of the parcel to an extrinsic event — either the price offered by a bona fide purchaser or that set by appraisal — and, additionally, provided the method for selection of appraisers. We conclude that this "provides an objective standard that renders the * * * [option] definite and enforceable" (Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., supra, at 94; see also, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105, 109).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Tonkery v. Martina

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 11, 1991
78 N.Y.2d 893 (N.Y. 1991)
Case details for

Tonkery v. Martina

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH R. TONKERY, Respondent, v. VINCENT J. MARTINA, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 11, 1991

Citations

78 N.Y.2d 893 (N.Y. 1991)
573 N.Y.S.2d 450
577 N.E.2d 1042

Citing Cases

Teutul v. Teutul

Here, the subject option provides, in effect, that the plaintiff, upon request, may purchase all of the…

Marder's Nurseries v. Hopping

We nonetheless conclude that this provision is not so indefinite as to require cancellation of the contract.…