Jones v. Trice
| Decision Date | 07 March 1994 |
| Citation | 202 A.D.2d 394,608 N.Y.S.2d 688 |
| Parties | Nevelin C. JONES, Appellant, v. Louis S. TRICE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paroff & Cooper, Forest Hills (Debra M. Genetin, of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Darche, Kew Gardens, for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated February 27, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she abandoned a written contract, dated October 24, 1985, for the sale of real property. We disagree. It is well settled that the parties to an agreement can mutually agree to terminate it by expressly assenting to its rescission while simultaneously entering into a new agreement dealing with the same subject matter (see, Rodgers v. Rodgers, 235 N.Y. 408, 410, 139 N.E. 557, remittitur amended on other grounds 236 N.Y. 577, 142 N.E. 290; Schwartzreich v. Bauman-Basch, Inc., 231 N.Y. 196, 205, 131 N.E. 887; Richardson v. Dorato, 92 A.D.2d 687, 688, 460 N.Y.S.2d 188; Strychalski v. Mekus, 54 A.D.2d 1068, 388 N.Y.S.2d 969). The purchaser signed a sales contract, dated March 31, 1989, which expressly stated that "[a]ll oral or written statements, representations, promises, understandings and agreements of SELLER and PURCHASER are merged into and superseded by this contract and the agreement (rider) annexed hereto, which alone fully and completely expresses their agreement". The language of the March 31, 1989, agreement effectively terminated the October 24, 1985, agreement, since it was in writing and signed by the party against whom cancellation was sought to be enforced (see, General Obligations Law § 5-1103).
Moreover, the record amply supports the finding of the Supreme Court that the conduct of the plaintiff and the attendant circumstances constituted an abandonment of the October 24, 1985, contract (see, Matter of Rothko, 43 N.Y.2d 305, 324, 401 N.Y.S.2d 449, 372 N.E.2d 291; Rosiny v. Schmidt, 185 A.D.2d 727, 732, 587 N.Y.S.2d 929; Dutch v. Basile, 170 A.D.2d 966, 566 N.Y.S.2d 801; Matter of Schanzer, 7 A.D.2d 275, 182 N.Y.S.2d 475, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 972, 204 N.Y.S.2d 349, 169 N.E.2d 11).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant properly exercised his right to terminate the March 31, 1989, contract,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minovici v. Belkin BV
...preparations taken to move to the Netherlands, demonstrated an abandonment of the contract dated May 1, 2008 ( see Jones v. Trice, 202 A.D.2d 394, 395, 608 N.Y.S.2d 688). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, Belkin BV's offer to Catalin of a junior-ranking position at a lower salary did ......
-
Baldwin v. EMI Feist Catalog, Inc.
...while simultaneously entering into a new agreement dealing with the same subject matter.” Id. at 200 (quoting Jones v. Trice, 202 A.D.2d 394, 608 N.Y.S.2d 688, 688 (1994) ). Relying on that principle, we held that an author or his legatee may, under the existing-grantee exception, rescind a......
-
Dolansky v. Frisillo
...54 A.D.2d 1068, 1068, 388 N.Y.S.2d 969; see Day One Express Corp. v. Gracepat Corp., 55 A.D.3d 366, 865 N.Y.S.2d 86; Jones v. Trice, 202 A.D.2d 394, 608 N.Y.S.2d 688). “[W]hether a contract has been terminated or cancelled by mutual agreement is generally a question of fact for the jury whe......
-
B&A Realty Mgmt., LLC v. Gloria
...130 ; Eckel v. Francis, 5 A.D.3d 719, 722, 774 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; Buettner v. McCray, 300 A.D.2d 612, 754 N.Y.S.2d 298 ; Jones v. Trice, 202 A.D.2d 394, 395, 608 N.Y.S.2d 688 ). Additionally, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, 175 Lafayette could not unilaterally waive the governmental app......