Union St. Tower Llc v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 03 May 2011 |
| Citation | 84 A.D.3d 784,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03834,922 N.Y.S.2d 503 |
| Parties | UNION STREET TOWER, LLC, appellant,v.Eric RICHMOND, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
84 A.D.3d 784
922 N.Y.S.2d 503
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03834
UNION STREET TOWER, LLC, appellant,
v.
Eric RICHMOND, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 3, 2011.
[922 N.Y.S.2d 504]
Fred L. Seeman (Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Andrew N. Krinsky and Debra Bodian Bernstein], of counsel), for appellant.Michael T. Sucher, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew M. Shabasson of counsel), for respondents.REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
[84 A.D.3d 784] In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain rights to the development of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated April 9, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants' first and second counterclaims.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants' first and second counterclaims is granted.
Prior to March 2003, the defendant Eric Richmond owned certain real property that was divided into two parcels, Lot 1 and Lot 4. The property was encumbered by two mortgages. In March 2003 Richmond entered into an agreement with, among others, the plaintiff, Union Street Tower, LLC (hereinafter Union Street), whereby Richmond would deliver to Union Street a duly executed deed to Lot 4 and transfer certain development rights from Lot 1 to Lot 4, and Union Street's managing member, Jean G. Miele, would take over the first mortgage and forgive the second mortgage insofar as the mortgages affected Lot 1, leaving Lot 1 free and clear of both mortgages. The agreement also gave Richmond the option to repurchase Lot 4 within one year of the execution of the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, Richmond delivered a deed to Lot 4 to Union Street.
Within one year of the execution of the agreement, Richmond attempted to exercise the repurchase option. However, the parties could not agree on a purchase price, and Richmond ultimately failed to appear at the scheduled closing. Thereafter, Union Street notified Richmond that the repurchase option had expired. In
[922 N.Y.S.2d 505]
March 2004 Richmond commenced an action against, among others, Miele and Union Street, seeking, inter alia, to compel specific performance of the repurchase option provision [84 A.D.3d 785] in the agreement. Miele and Union Street moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co.
.... . . their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understandings or usage.'" Union St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784, 785 (2d Dep't 2011) (quoting Smith v. Russel Sage Coll., 54 N.Y. 2d 185, 192-93 (N.Y. 1981) (ellipsis in original)). This doctrine is......
-
Posa v. Copiague Pub. Sch. Dist.
...negligence, if any, caused the accident, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of their cross motion which was for [922 N.Y.S.2d 503] summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against H & E ( see Bellefleur v. Newark Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 66 A.D.......
-
Jacobson Dev. Grp., LLC v. Grossman
...429 N.E.2d 1158 ; Greenaway v. Clifton & Classon Apt. Corp., 191 A.D.3d 958, 959, 142 N.Y.S.3d 607 ; Union St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784, 786, 922 N.Y.S.2d 503 ; Marinelli Assoc. v. Helmsley–Noyes Co., 265 A.D.2d 1, 8, 705 N.Y.S.2d 571 ; Slavin v. Fischer, 160 A.D.2d 934, 934, 5......
-
In re 231 Fourth Ave. Lyceum, LLC
...to purchase the adjacent lot expired, as he did not exercise the option within the specified time); see alsoUnion St. Tower, LLC v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784, 922 N.Y.S.2d 503 (2011) (applying the doctrine of res judicata to bar Mr. Richmond's counterclaim asserting the right to redeem the di......