From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duane Sales, Inc. v. Carmel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 25, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1980)

Opinion

Argued February 14, 1980

Decided March 25, 1980

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, WILLIAM R. MURRAY, J.

Harry R. Hayes for appellants.

Richard E. Rowlands for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the order and judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, granting defendants' cross motions to dismiss the complaint and supplemental summons and complaint reinstated.

The option provision in the lease between plaintiff and C. Louden Realty Co., landlord, gave plaintiff the right to "purchase the property at the same terms and conditions as offered by any bona fide purchaser". Through a broker, landlord negotiated a contract for the sale of the property to defendants Hayes, Brickman and Wasserman. Plaintiff chose to exercise its option, but excluded the term of the proposed contract by which the parties agreed that the broker had negotiated the sale and the purchaser agreed to pay the brokerage commission and indemnify the seller against liability and expenses arising from a claim for a brokerage commission.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, it simply did not accept "at the same terms and conditions as offered" as required in the lease. Nothing in the option provision permits the optionee to accept only those terms and conditions of an offer it deems material and beneficial to the landlord (cf. Camden Co. v Princess Props. Int., 38 N.Y.2d 961). Nor can it be said that an agreement to pay a commission for negotiating the sale and to indemnify against a broker's claim, as to liability and expenses, would be immaterial to the landlord upon the exercise of an option. The seller properly could treat plaintiff's purported acceptance as a rejection of the proposed terms and conditions. In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to pass upon the remaining issues raised by defendants.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Duane Sales, Inc. v. Carmel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 25, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1980)
Case details for

Duane Sales, Inc. v. Carmel

Case Details

Full title:DUANE SALES, INC., Respondent, v. PHILIP CARMEL et al., Appellants

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 25, 1980

Citations

49 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1980)

Citing Cases

Willis v. Ronan

We also conclude, however, that Willis failed to unconditionally exercise his option to purchase by virtue of…

VERUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ASTRAZENECA AB

These extra-contractual conditions — which sought to impose materially different terms and conditions than…