You are here: / / DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF TWO PROPERTIES...
,

DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF TWO PROPERTIES DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the one page document purporting to be a contract to sell two properties to defendant did not satisfy the statute of frauds. Therefore plaintiff’s action for specific performance was properly dismissed:

In a real estate transaction, the essential terms of a contract typically include the purchase price, the time and terms of payment, the required financing, the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, the risk of loss during the sale period, and adjustments for taxes and utilities … . “[W]here a contract’s material terms are not reasonably definite, the contract is unenforceable” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the basis that the agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds. The agreement did not state all of the essential terms, including allocation of the price between the two properties, whether one property could be sold without the other, the terms of payment, and the risk of loss during the sale period, and did not mention the adjustments for taxes and utilities which would customarily be included in a transaction of this nature … . In addition, the agreement did not include the necessary parties because not all of the owners of the properties executed the agreement … . 443 Jefferson Holdings, LLC v Sosa, 2019 NY Slip Op 05376, Second Dept 7-3-19

​

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE.
Second Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Not Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
Tree Removal Was First Step in Making Structural Repairs, Injury During Tree Removal Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
MOTIONS FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BY ENTERING A STIPULATION SETTLING A FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAIVED ANY DEFECT IN SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE STIPULATION WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT OCCUR IN COURT, EMAILS AND PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT MEMORIALIZED THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
Conflicting Expert Opinions, One of Which Was “Conclusory” with Respect to Proximate Cause, Raised Question of Fact
THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE SPECIAL DAMAGES WITH PARTICULARITY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PRIMA FACIE TORT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ANY GROUND FOR A DISCLAIMER NOT MENTIONED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER IS WAIVED.

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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BASED IN PART ON THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF RESPONDENT’S... THE LAW REQUIRING THAT SEX OFFENDERS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL...