From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dimon v. Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-01059

Argued March 1, 2002.

November 4, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered December 26, 2000, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ruskin, Moscou, Evans Faltischek, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas J. Good and Adam L. Browser of counsel), for appellants.

Murray B. Schneps, Aquebogue, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in finding that the agreement, which gave the plaintiff a future right to receive additional compensation for the sale of his interest in certain real property, was enforceable. Although the agreement does not violate the rule against perpetuities' prohibition against suspension of the power of alienation (see EPTL 9-1.1[a][2]) because at all times the plaintiff or his assigns and the defendants or those taking from them could have acted together and conveyed a fee absolute in the defendants' parcel (see Buffalo Seminary v. McCarthy, 86 A.D.2d 435, 438-439), it violates the rule against perpetuities' prohibition against remoteness of vesting (see EPTL 9-1.1[b]). The agreement uses the terminology "successors, heirs or assigns," and there is no time limitation on the duration of the agreement, which leads to the conclusion that the parties intended the plaintiff's future right to last indefinitely (see Symphony Space v. Pergola Props., 88 N.Y.2d 466; Morrison v. Piper, 77 N.Y.2d 165; Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v. Bruken Realty Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 156). Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dimon v. Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Dimon v. Starr

Case Details

Full title:C. DOUGLAS DIMON, respondent, v. REGINE STARR, ETC., ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 78

Citing Cases

Kaiser-Haidri v. Battery Place Green, LLC

The parties agree that, as to that branch of BPG's motion which was with respect to the plaintiffs' first and…

Kozak v. Porada

This same language compels the conclusion that the divestiture agreement violates the rule against remote…