AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

YENOM CORP., Appellant, v. 155 WOOSTER STREET INC. et al., Respondents.

The documentary evidence, including the draft contract circulated by Cooper's attorney on which plaintiff relies as some evidence of the material terms of the alleged contract, establishes what scarcely could be doubted in any event: the parties did not intend to be bound until defendants "executed . . . and delivered a fully executed copy of the Contract to Buyer or Buyer's attorney." The letter that covered the draft was just as explicit, stating that "[t]he forwarding of this contract shall not be deemed an offer." Accordingly, absent an allegation that the subject contract was fully executed and delivered, the complaint was properly dismissed ( see RAJ Acquisition Corp. v. Atamanuk, 272 AD2d 164; BMH Realty v. 399 E. 72nd St. Owners, 221 AD2d 165). Moreover, even if there were no intent to be bound only upon execution of a formal contract, the many substantial changes to Cooper's draft that were prepared by plaintiff's counsel and the parties' subsequent correspondence establish that there was never a meeting of the minds on material terms, including price. Notably, one section of the draft that plaintiff's counsel did not alter was that requiring execution and delivery of a formal contract. The notice of pendency was properly cancelled upon dismissal of the complaint ( see Samantha Enters. v. Elizabeth St., 5 AD3d 280).

In view of defendants' clear showing of an intent not to be bound without a formal contract and the absence of credible evidence tending to show a meeting of the minds on all material terms, the action and filing of the notice of pendency were "completely without merit in law," and therefore sanctionable ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). No basis exists to disturb the IAS court's discretion to make the sanction an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, imposed against both plaintiff and its attorney ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [b]; see Saleh v. Hochberg, 5 AD3d 234). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments, including that the motion court did not adequately explain the award of costs, and find them to be without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

YENOM CORP. v. 155 WOOSTER STREET INC
(Nov 17, 2005)