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

WILLIAMSBURG BUSINESS PARK, LLC, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN NAVY YARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent; ET AL., Inter

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation and the New York City Department of Business Services. Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff Williamsburg Business Park, LLC, in Matter No. 1, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in Matter No. 1. The writing relied upon by the appellant was an agreement to agree, which is unenforceable under the statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Martin Delicatessen v. Schumacher, 52 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110; Sabetfard v. Smith, 306 A.D.2d 265; Checkla v. Stone Meadow Homes, 280 A.D.2d 510; Tribune Print. Co. v. 263 Ninth Ave. Realty, 88 A.D.2d 877, 878-879, affd 57 N.Y.2d 1038).

The Supreme Court properly denied the CPLR article 78 petition and dismissed Matter No. 2, as the determination of the respondent New York City Department of Business Services to withhold approval of the purported lease was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by a rational basis ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).

The appellant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WILLIAMSBURG BUS. PARK v. BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
(Dec 1, 2003)