New York Court of Appeals, 1981

Sagan v. Sagan

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 24, 1981

53 N.Y.2d 635; 420 N.E.2d 974; 438 N.Y.S.2d 782; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2300

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
Princeton Restoration Corp. v. International Fidelity Insurance (District Court, E.D. New York 2004)
Winmar Co. v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n of America (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
New York First Avenue CVS, Inc. v. Wellington Tower Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Little Prince Productions, Ltd. v. Scoullar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Darius v. Darius (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Haynes v. Haynes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Zelnik v. Zelnik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Mantek Services, Inc. v. Rye Office Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Chimart Associates v. Paul (N.Y. 1986)
305 East 24th Owners Corp. v. Parman Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Brabaw v. Brabaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by granting judgment on the second cause of action declaring that there is no valid agreement between the parties and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, with costs to respondent.

The internal material indices of incompleteness in the conditioned so-called “Preliminary Agreement” and the parties’ conceded subsequent unsuccessful efforts to flesh it out together support the conclusion of the Appellate Division that there is no enforceable agreement between the parties. Concordantly, the request for a declaration of rights should have been granted and a declaration made that, since there was no valid agreement between the parties, no rights inured to the plaintiff thereunder (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334). There, therefore, was insufficient support for the causes so premised.

Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks reforma*637tion of the writing, her tender of proof in evidentiary form does not rise to the high level required to resist a motion for summary judgment directed against such an action (see Backer Mgt. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219-220).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order modified, with costs to respondent, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.