Published on:

Court Hears Action for Specific Performance

This matter deals with Angelo Licata who is deceased. The appellant of the case is Annette Chessare and the respondents in the case are Cecilia Licata, et al. The case is being heard in the Second Judicial Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, a probate proceeding was held and an action for specific performance of a contract to sell real property was transferred from the Supreme Court of Suffolk County to the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County. The appellant, Annette Chessare is appealing the order from the Surrogates Court dated the fifth of February, 2009 that denied her motion for summary judgment on the complaint made in the action for specific performance and an order from the same court made on the 25th of September, 2009 upon re-argument that adhered to the original decision that was previously made on the fifth of February, 2009.

Court Discussion and Decision

The court orders that the appeal for the order that was made on the fifth of February, 2009 is dismissed as that order was superseded by the order that was dated the 25th of September, 2009. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer said the court affirms the decision that was made on re-argument on the 25th of September, 2009. A bill of costs will be awarded to the respondents as well.

It is found that the Surrogate’s court was correct in denying the motion for summary judgment made by the plaintiff in the complaint that sought to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property to the plaintiff. In order to be enforced a contract for the sale of real property must be evident in writing that meets the statute of frauds. A Nassau County Probate Lawyer said the contract must identify and describe the subject matter and state all of the essential terms of the complete agreement in order to meet the statutes requirements.

In this particular case the plaintiff has failed to make prima facie showing entitlement to a judgment as the matter of the law. The evidence that was submitted by the plaintiff did not establish the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding whether specific terms of the mortgage were subject to the contract or had been left for future negotiations.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations regarding any legal issue that you may have, whether you have an estate litigation issue, or require a will. Contact one of our New York City offices to speak with a qualified attorney today.

Contact Information