Roer v. Cross County Medical Center Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 August 1981 |
| Citation | 83 A.D.2d 861,441 N.Y.S.2d 844 |
| Parties | Edwin M. ROER et al., Respondents, v. CROSS COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER CORP. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irving J. Zipin and Edward J. Schwarz, New York City, for appellant Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc.
Herbert J. Tamres, New York City, for appellants Cross County Medical Center Corp. and United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc.
Granik, Silverman, Sandberg, Kirschner, Campbell & Nowicki, New City (David W. Silverman, New City, of counsel), for respondents Edwin M. Roer and Haren Realty Co.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and HOPKINS, DAMIANI and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance and to recover damages for intentional interference with a contract, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 8, 1980, which denied their motion for summary judgment.
Order modified, on the law, by adding after the word "denied", the following: "except that the defendants' motion is granted as to the plaintiffs' first and third causes of action and those causes of action are dismissed." As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Defendant Cross County Medical Center Corp. (CMCC), the lessee of two floors of an office building in Yonkers, New York, entered into a contract by which plaintiff Roer, d/b/a Haren Realty Company (hereafter plaintiff), agreed to manage the two floors. CMCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. (UMM) and its sole asset was its long-term leasehold interest in the building. When the building was sold, defendant Marx Realty and Improvement Co., Inc. (Marx) became the managing agent for the new owner.
The contract between CMCC and the plaintiff contained the following provision:
CMCC subsequently negotiated separately with both the plaintiff and Marx for the sale of the leasehold. Ultimately CMCC conveyed its interest in the lease to Marx and, as a result, plaintiff commenced this action.
Plaintiff contends that he entered a valid contract with CMCC for the sale of the leasehold and, consequently, he seeks damages for the breach. He also seeks damages for the intentional interference with that contract. In addition, plaintiff contends that CMCC breached the above-quoted provision in the management contract which granted the plaintiff a right of first refusal. And plaintiff further seeks damages for the alleged intentional interference with that contractual provision. Finally, plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged breach of a management contract entered into with Marx.
The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Special Term denied the motion in its entirety finding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GREYSTONE v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij
...else terminated Martinair's August 23 offer, this additional requirement certainly did. See Roer v. Cross County Med. Center Corp., 83 A.D.2d 861, 441 N.Y.S.2d 844, 845 (2nd Dept.1981) (valid acceptance must comply with terms of offer and if qualified with conditions, is equivalent to a rej......
-
Demalco Ltd. v. Feltner
...(1972). 12 See Nifty Foods Corp. v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 614 F.2d 832, 837 (2d Cir.1980); Roer v. Cross County Medical Center Corp., 83 A.D.2d 861, 441 N.Y.S.2d 844 (2d Dep't 1981). 13 See, e.g., Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exec., 561 F.Supp. 379, 386 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Sadowy v. S......
-
John's Insulation, Inc. v. Siska Const. Co., Inc.
...Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 216 N.Y. 310, 318-19, 110 N.E. 619, 621-22 (1915); Roer v. Cross County Med. Center Corp., 83 A.D.2d 861, 863, 441 N.Y.S.2d 844, 845 (2d Dep't 1981); Arnold v. Gramercy Co., 30 Misc.2d 852, 854, 218 N.Y.S.2d 23, 25 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.County 1961), aff'd, 15 A......
-
In re Westinghouse Elec. Co.
...of Transp. , 93 N.Y.2d 584, 589-590, 693 N.Y.S.2d 857, 715 N.E.2d 1050 (N.Y. 1999) ) ); Roer v. Cross Cty. Med. Ctr. Corp. , 83 A.D.2d 861, 861, 441 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1981) ("It is a fundamental principle of contract law that a valid acceptance must comply with the terms......