From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seminary v. McCarthy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 867 (N.Y. 1983)

Summary

In Buffalo Seminary v McCarthy (58 N.Y.2d 867, affg for reasons stated in Parts I and II of opn at 86 A.D.2d 435) the Court of Appeals held that whatever the rule may have been previously, the rule against remote vesting in the present statute will be applied to invalidate an option to purchase real property if it is exercisable beyond the statutory period.

Summary of this case from Symphony Space v. Pergola

Opinion

Argued January 12, 1983

Decided February 10, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, M. Dolores Denman, J.

Jerrold S. Brown for appellant.

Timothy A. McCarthy for respondents.



Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in Parts I and II of the opinion by Justice STEWART F. HANCOCK, JR., at the Appellate Division ( 86 A.D.2d 435).

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER. Taking no part: Judge SIMONS.


Summaries of

Seminary v. McCarthy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 10, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 867 (N.Y. 1983)

In Buffalo Seminary v McCarthy (58 N.Y.2d 867, affg for reasons stated in Parts I and II of opn at 86 A.D.2d 435) the Court of Appeals held that whatever the rule may have been previously, the rule against remote vesting in the present statute will be applied to invalidate an option to purchase real property if it is exercisable beyond the statutory period.

Summary of this case from Symphony Space v. Pergola
Case details for

Seminary v. McCarthy

Case Details

Full title:BUFFALO SEMINARY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL L. McCARTHY et al., Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 10, 1983

Citations

58 N.Y.2d 867 (N.Y. 1983)
460 N.Y.S.2d 528
447 N.E.2d 76

Citing Cases

Landmark Capital Co. v. Bowery Savings Bank

In Buffalo Seminary v McCarthy ( 86 A.D.2d 435, 443) the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that…

Tenants Corp. v. Jones

If the option to purchase does not comply with the rule against perpetuities, that interest could be…