Perri v. Case

• Decision Date: 04 August 2022
• Docket Number: 560,CA 21-01255
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 1046,173 N.Y.S.3d 785
• Parties: Michael PERRI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark CASE, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 1046
173 N.Y.S.3d 785

Michael PERRI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Mark CASE, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.)

560
CA 21-01255

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

Entered: August 4, 2022

REFERMAT HURWITZ & DANIEL PLLC, ROCHESTER (JOHN T. REFERMAT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANTIAGO BURGER LLP, ROCHESTER (FERNANDO SANTIAGO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

173 N.Y.S.3d 786

208 A.D.3d 1047

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage (Case), in which plaintiff held a right of first refusal to purchase the leased premises. Under the terms of that lease provision, Case was obligated to notify plaintiff in writing of the terms of any bona fide offer Case received for the property. Plaintiff thereafter had 10 business days to purchase the property on terms identical to those offered by the third party. Plaintiff commenced this action to enforce that contractual right after Case allegedly entered into a purchase agreement for the property with defendants Brian and Jeffrey Cook (Cook defendants) without notifying plaintiff of the terms of that agreement and without offering plaintiff the right of first refusal. In appeal No. 1, Case appeals from an order and judgment that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and on his cause of action for specific performance to the extent that it sought to compel Case to convey a purchase offer to him. In appeal No. 2, Case and the Cook defendants (collectively, defendants) separately appeal from an order denying Case's motion, joined by the Cook defendants, for "leave to reargue and/or renew" their opposition to plaintiff's motion. In appeal No. 3, defendants separately appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted in part plaintiff's motion seeking to hold Case in contempt—i.e., for failing to comply with the order and judgment in appeal No. 1—by granting that motion to the extent that it sought to hold Case in civil contempt.

Addressing first appeal No. 1, we note as an initial matter that the record does not contain a notice of appeal from the order and judgment with respect...