Bayly v. Broomfield
| Decision Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Citation | 939 N.Y.S.2d 634,93 A.D.3d 909,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01532 |
| Parties | Lynn BAYLY et al., Plaintiffs,andPatricia L. Young, as Administrator of the Estate of George E. Young, Deceased, Respondent, v. Lillian M. BROOMFIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01532
93 A.D.3d 909
939 N.Y.S.2d 634
Lynn BAYLY et al., Plaintiffs,andPatricia L. Young, as Administrator of the Estate of George E. Young, Deceased, Respondent,
v.
Lillian M. BROOMFIELD, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 1, 2012.
[939 N.Y.S.2d 635]
Frederic E. Sober, Binghamton, for appellant.
Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Anna Dmitriev of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.
KAVANAGH, J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered August 27, 2010 in Broome County, which granted plaintiff Patricia L. Young's motion for, among other things, summary judgment requiring defendant's specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property.
Decedent and defendant were the owners of a piece of improved real property located in the Town of Kirkwood, Broome County. After decedent's death, plaintiff Patricia L. Young, administrator of decedent's estate, and defendant accepted an offer by plaintiffs Lynn Bayly and Ann Bayly to purchase the property. Two months later, in December 2009, defendant indicated that she would only agree to the sale if a clause was added to the contract prohibiting any drilling or other environmental damage to the property and requiring that it remain “forever green.” In response, plaintiffs commenced this action for, among other things, specific performance of the contract. Defendant filed a verified answer to the complaint, with a counterclaim against Young with respect to personal property she alleged belonged to decedent's estate. Subsequently, Young moved for summary judgment on the claim for specific performance and asked that defendant's counterclaim regarding decedent's personal property be moved to Surrogate's Court. Supreme Court granted the motion in its entirety and defendant now appeals.1
Supreme Court properly determined that a valid contract for the sale of the property existed between the parties and that plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the contract. It found that the contract contained an ample description of the property, set forth the contract price as well as the method of payment, established a closing date and, by its terms, constituted the record of the complete agreement entered into by the parties ( see Ouimet v. Fitzsimmons, 68 A.D.3d 1507, 1508, 892 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 714, 905 N.Y.S.2d 559, 931 N.E.2d 544 [2010]; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Chauvin
...998, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492 [1983];Nehmadi v. Davis, 95 A.D.3d 1181, 1185, 945 N.Y.S.2d 122 [2012];Bayly v. Broomfield, 93 A.D.3d 909, 911, 939 N.Y.S.2d 634 [2012] ). It is well established that, where a contract for the sale of real property does not specify that time is of the e......
-
Dusch v. Erie Cnty. Med. Ctr.
...adversaries responded to the newly presented claim or evidence" ( id. at 381-382, 822 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; see Bayly v. Broomfield , 93 A.D.3d 909, 910-911, 939 N.Y.S.2d 634 [3d Dept. 2012] ).Here, as claimant correctly contends, although he submitted the medical records for the first time in his......
-
Inc. v. Mastic Beach Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...the Court will exercise its discretion and consider both the reply and sur-reply in deciding these motions ( see Bayly v. Broomfield, 93 AD3d 909, 939 N.Y.S.2d 634 [3d Dept 2012]; Whale Telecom Ltd. v. Qualcomm Inc., 41 AD3d 348, 839 N.Y.S.2d 726 [1st Dept 2007]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raguzi......
-
Tomhannock, LLC v. Roustabout Res., LLC
...Fitzsimmons, 68 A.D.3d 1507, 1508, 892 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2009],lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 714, 2010 WL 2400440 [2010];cf. Bayly v. Broomfield, 93 A.D.3d 909, 911, 939 N.Y.S.2d 634 [2012] ). As a general proposition, a party “attempting to validly exercise an option to purchase real property must stric......