O'Hanlon v. Renwick

• Decision Date: 21 November 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–06293,2016–12354,2016–11434,Index No. 30409/16
• Citation: 88 N.Y.S.3d 428,166 A.D.3d 890
• Parties: Troy O'HANLON, Respondent, v. Alister RENWICK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 890

88 N.Y.S.3d 428

Troy O'HANLON, Respondent,

v.Alister RENWICK, Appellant.

2016–06293

2016–11434

2016–12354

Index No. 30409/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—September 6, 2018

November 21, 2018

Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Paul W. Valentine, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Savad Churgin, LLP, Nanuet, N.Y. (Susan Cooper of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Victor J. Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated May 4, 2016, (2) an order of the same court dated October 27, 2016, and (3) a judgment of the same court dated November 23, 2016. The order dated May 4, 2016, denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint. The order dated October 27, 2016, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action, for specific performance. The judgment, upon the order dated October 27, 2016, directed specific performance of the contract.

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, for specific performance, is denied, and the order dated October 27, 2016, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The defendant owns a commercial property located in Suffern. On October 30, 2015, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a document acknowledging that the parties had entered into an agreement for the plaintiff to purchase the subject property (hereinafter the agreement). The agreement identified the property by a street address, and specified the purchase price, the payment terms, and that a cash deposit was paid. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the agreement. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the agreement was not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. In an order dated May 4, 2016, the Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement satisfied the statute of frauds. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which was for specific performance. In an order dated October 27, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion. In a judgment dated November 23, 2016, the court directed specific performance of the agreement. The defendant appeals.

The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts as alleged within the four corners of the complaint must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference to determine whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see CPLR 3026 ; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ; Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17 ; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970 ). To be enforceable, a contract for the sale of real property must be evidenced by a writing sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5–703[1] ). To satisfy the statute of frauds, a writing evidencing a contract must identify the parties, describe the subject matter, be signed by the party to be charged, and state all of the essential terms of an agreement (see Piller v. Marsam Realty 13th Ave., LLC, 136 A.D.3d 773, 773–774, 25 N.Y.S.3d 273 ; Dahan v. Weiss, 120 A.D.3d 540, 541, 991 N.Y.S.2d 119 ; Matter of Licata, 76 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 908 N.Y.S.2d 441 ). Insofar as relevant to this case, the "essential terms" of a contract for the sale of real property include the price and terms of payment, as well as the description of the property to be sold ( Nesbitt v. Penalver, 40 A.D.3d 596, 598, 835 N.Y.S.2d 426 ; see Sabetfard v. Djavaheri Realty Corp., 18 A.D.3d 640, 641, 795 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the parties' anticipation of executing a more formal contract did not impair the effectiveness of the agreement, as the agreement embodied all of the essential terms (see 160 Chambers St. Realty Corp. v. Register of City of N.Y., 226 A.D.2d 606, 607, 641 N.Y.S.2d 351 ). "Only reasonable certainty, not absolute certainty, as to the terms of the agreement is required" ( Matter of Licata, 76 A.D.3d at 1077, 908 N.Y.S.2d 441 ; see Del Pozo v. Impressive Homes, Inc., 95 A.D.3d 1268, 1271, 945 N.Y.S.2d 368 ). Here, the essential terms of the contract were explicitly contained in the agreement, thus satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds. The agreement is subscribed by the parties to be charged, identifies the parties to the transaction, describes the property to be sold with sufficient particularity, and states the purchase price, the down payment received, and how the purchase price was to be paid (see Simpson v. 1147 Dean, LLC, 116 A.D.3d 835, 836, 983 N.Y.S.2d 443 ). Additionally, while some terms, such as the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, and the risk of loss between the contract and the closing, are not included within the agreement, the remaining terms are clear and enforceable and, thus, the law will serve to fill in those missing provisions (see Omar v. Rozen, 55 A.D.3d 705, 706, 867 N.Y.S.2d 458 ; 160 Chambers St. Realty Corp. v. Register of City of N.Y., 226 A.D.2d at 607, 641 N.Y.S.2d 351 ). Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff did not meet his prima facie burden on his motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action, for specific performance. "To prevail on a cause of action for specific performance of a...