From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sieger v. Prehay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 2005
16 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

granting motions to dismiss where the letter only referenced "the house" and where "no property or street address is stated in the letter, nor did it set forth dimensions, acreage, metes and bounds, or lot number

Summary of this case from Bellen v. Weiser

Opinion

2004-00545.

March 21, 2005.

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated November 17, 2003, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Joan Prehay and Southpoint, Inc., which were to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the letter dated July 1, 2002, which the plaintiff and the defendant Joan Prehay signed, failed to describe the real property owned by Prehay with the degree of certainty necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law § 5-703; Cohen v. Swenson, 140 AD2d 407; J J Bldrs. Devs. v. D'Alesio Sons, 158 AD2d 674). The letter referred only to "the house" at a certain corner and made no reference to real property or land. Moreover, no property street address is stated in the letter, nor did it set forth dimensions, acreage, metes and bounds, or lot number ( cf. Hackal v. Adler, 234 AD2d 341). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.


Summaries of

Sieger v. Prehay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 2005
16 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

granting motions to dismiss where the letter only referenced "the house" and where "no property or street address is stated in the letter, nor did it set forth dimensions, acreage, metes and bounds, or lot number

Summary of this case from Bellen v. Weiser
Case details for

Sieger v. Prehay

Case Details

Full title:HELEN SIEGER, Appellant, v. JOAN PREHAY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 657

Citing Cases

Three Way Plumbing, Bath Design Ct. v. 61 Jericho

The sufficiency of the description may depend upon its context. An isolated reference to "the house" has been…

Makin v. Makin

We agree with DCG that the description of the real property contained in the agreement was not sufficiently…