Contracts · MBE-tested
Daniel B. Meyer, Respondent, v. Cessna Realty Associates et al., Defendants, and Richard J. Gillani, Appellant
227 A.D.2d 929643 N.Y.S.2d 446·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1996·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Daniel B. Meyer, Respondent, v Cessna Realty Associates et al., Defendants, and Richard J. Gillani, Appellant.
[643 NYS2d 446]
[MAJORITY]
Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the telephonic communication of the Receiver informing plaintiff that he accepted plaintiff’s written offer to purchase real property resulted in a binding contract for the purchase of that property (see, Tymon v Linoki, 16 NY2d 293, 298-299, rearg denied 17 NY2d 612; Birch v McNall, 19 AD2d 850). The court, therefore, properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, directing specific performance of that contract (see, Matter of Denison, 114 NY 621, 622). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.