You are here: / / Contract Giving Plaintiff Option to Sell the Property Back to the Defendants...
,

Contract Giving Plaintiff Option to Sell the Property Back to the Defendants If Rezoning Not Obtained Was Ambiguous About When the Option Must Be Exercised Raising a Question of Fact About the Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Exercise of the Option

The Second Department determined the contract rider which allowed plaintiff-purchaser to sell the property back to the defendants-sellers if rezoning and subdivision approvals were not obtained within 15 months was an option contract.  The defendants argued that the option must be exercised within a reasonable time and the plaintiff’s failure to do so entitled defendants to summary judgment.  Supreme Court disagreed and granted plaintiff summary judgment (specific performance). The Second Department found that the contract was ambiguous concerning the time within which the option must be exercised, raising a triable question of fact:

An option contract is an agreement to hold an offer open; it confers upon the optionee, for consideration paid, the right to purchase–—or, less commonly, to sell –at a later date … . Whether an agreement is an option contract or a bilateral contract is determined by reference to its various terms … .

Here, as the defendants correctly contend, section 8(a) of the rider to the subject contract giving the plaintiff the right to sell the property back to [the defendants if plaintiff] failed to obtain certain rezoning and subdivision approvals was an option contract, as it conferred upon the plaintiff the right to sell the property back to Fairview at a later date.

However, in order for there to be an enforceable contract for the sale of land upon which an action for specific performance can be based, an optionee must exercise an option in accordance with its terms, within the time and the manner specified in the option … .

Here, the plaintiff interprets the option contained in section 8(a) of the rider as providing it with an open-ended right to exercise same, and the Supreme Court agreed. The defendants, however, interpret the same provision as limiting the plaintiff’s time to exercise the option to “a reasonable time” after the expiration of the aforementioned 15-month period in which to obtain the specified rezoning and subdivision approvals, and contend that the plaintiff failed to timely exercise its rights.

“Contract language which is clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to its terms” … . However, ambiguity in a written agreement exists if there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the language at issue … . The test for determining whether contract language is ambiguous is “whether the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the court … . Here, we conclude that section 8(a) of the rider is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation regarding the time within which the plaintiff had to exercise the option. Since a triable issue of fact exists as to the intention of the parties, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance … . IPE Asset Mgt LLC v Fairview Block & Supply Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08811, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

You might also like
LYFT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LYFT DRIVER; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON THE ASSURANCES OF SAFETY ON LYFT’S WEBSITE (SECOND DEPT).
Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway
Cause of Action for Breach of “Sharing Assets” Agreement Entered Into During an 18-Year “Committed Same-Sex Relationship” Reinstated
PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.
TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated
FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED.
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Only Parties “Aggrieved Within the Meaning of CPLR 5511” May Ap... Article 78 Is Proper Mechanism for Seeking Return of Property Held by the Police...