From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bergman v. Krausz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 14, 2005
19 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

holding that "[i]nasmuch as the transaction involved the sale of stock in corporations whose sole asset was a commercial building, the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703(2)) was applicable"

Summary of this case from MicroMat Co. v. Catskill Mountain Brewing Co.

Opinion

6327.

June 14, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 4, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' ninth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Law Office of Sheldon Eisenberger, New York (Sheldon Eisenberger of counsel), for appellants.

Cantor, Epstein Degenshein, LLP, New York (Robert I. Cantor of counsel), for Krausz respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.


The court properly dismissed the cause of action for specific performance of an alleged agreement by defendants to sell their shares in two corporations jointly owned by the parties. Inasmuch as the transaction involved the sale of stock in corporations whose sole asset was a commercial building, the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703) was applicable ( Pritsker v. Kazan, 132 AD2d 507; cf. Sabin-Goldberg v. Horn, 179 AD2d 462). The letter relied on by plaintiffs was unenforceable since it did not state the essential terms of a complete agreement ( see O'Brien v. West, 199 AD2d 369), and there was no indication that the signatory had the authority to act on defendants' behalf ( see Bowling v. Pedzik, 302 AD2d 343).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Bergman v. Krausz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 14, 2005
19 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

holding that "[i]nasmuch as the transaction involved the sale of stock in corporations whose sole asset was a commercial building, the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703(2)) was applicable"

Summary of this case from MicroMat Co. v. Catskill Mountain Brewing Co.
Case details for

Bergman v. Krausz

Case Details

Full title:HENRY BERGMAN et al., Appellants, v. MARTON KRAUSZ et al., Respondents, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 14, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
796 N.Y.S.2d 360

Citing Cases

Yenom Core v. 155 Wooster

Initially, we note that because the transaction which is the subject of the alleged oral contract involved…

Wells v. Hodgkins

(Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster St. Inc., 33 AD3d 67, 70–71 [2006] ; see Bergman v. Krausz, 19 AD3d 186, 186–187…