Hackal v. Adler
| Decision Date | 09 December 1996 |
| Citation | 234 A.D.2d 341,650 N.Y.S.2d 792 |
| Parties | Harry HACKAL, et al., Respondents, v. Eric ADLER, et al., Defendants, Robert Schneider, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jeffrey S. Shumejda, North Tarrytown, for appellants.
Ciarelli & Dempsey, Melville (John L. Ciarelli, of counsel), for respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and COPERTINO, JOY and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel a determination of claims to real property, the defendants Robert and Dawn Schneider appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated September 1, 1995, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs Harry and Joan Hackal claim that in 1985 the late Rose Adler, the mother of the defendants Eric and Roger Adler, gave them an option to purchase certain property which was to be effective in the event that the property was offered for sale, or upon her death. According to the plaintiffs, the written option prepared and signed by Rose Adler without an attorney, was given to them in exchange for their agreement to forbear from seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of the same property, entered into some months earlier.
In 1988 Mrs. Adler conveyed the property to her sons, retaining for herself a life estate. She died in 1994, and in April 1995 the plaintiffs sought to exercise their option, and commenced this action having learned that the defendants Eric and Roger Adler had sold, or were about to sell, the property to the appellants Robert and Dawn Schneider. The Schneiders' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was denied, and they appeal.
We find that summary judgment was properly denied. The appellants' contention that the written option is insufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds is meritless. The decedent's description of the premises as "my property--house and land" is sufficiently definite and exact to permit the property to be identified with reasonable certainty in satisfaction of the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]; Maccioni v. Guzman, 145 A.D.2d 415, 416, 535 N.Y.S.2d 96; Frank v. Katz, 145 A.D.2d 597, 598, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Pozo v. Impressive Homes, Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 441). “Only reasonable certainty, not absolute certainty, as to the terms of the agreement is required” ( Hackal v. Adler, 234 A.D.2d 341, 342, 650 N.Y.S.2d 792;see Maccioni v. Guzman, 145 A.D.2d 415, 416, 535 N.Y.S.2d 96). Where the property is described with such definiteness and......
-
Estate of Dallman
...their land by gift. See, e.g., Isaacson v. First Security Bank, 95 Idaho 452, 511 P.2d 269 (Idaho 1973); Hackal v. Adler, 234 A.D.2d 341, 650 N.Y.S.2d 792 (App.Div.1996); Jackson v. Valvo, 579 N.Y.S. 300 (App.Div.1992); Mericle v. Wolf, 386 Pa.Super. 82, 562 A.2d 364 (Pa.Super.Ct.1989); Per......
-
Metro. Lofts of Ny, LLC v. Metroeb Realty 1, LLC
...never presented the checks for payment and, thus, the option to terminate under this provision was not triggered (see Hackal v. Adler, 234 A.D.2d 341, 342, 650 N.Y.S.2d 792 ). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to conform its complaint......
- Goldman v. Chase Manhattan Bank