TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leonard v. Ickovic

Christopher Leonard v. Thomas Ickovic

Leonard v. Ickovic, 79 A.D.2d 603 (1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 1, 1980
Citations
79 A.D.2d 603433 N.Y.S.2d 4991980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13941

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action, inter alia, to dissolve an alleged joint venture, the appeal, as limited by appellants’ brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 12, 1979, as is in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Ickovic in the amount of $4,556.35, plus interest, costs and disbursements, after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, the first decretal paragraph is deleted therefrom and the complaint is dismissed as against defendant Ickovic. An examination of the record reveals that the subject agreement was not an option contract but rather an agreement of purchase and sale. An option contract is an agreement to hold an offer open; it confers upon the optionee, for consideration paid, the right to purchase at a later date, and the consideration is forfeited if the option is not effectively exercised (Rottkamp v Eger, 74 Misc 2d 858 ). At bar, it appears the parties simply agreed that plaintiff would purchase and defendant Ickovic would sell certain property, although title was not to pass until plaintiff had paid oyer the entire purchase price, the payments to be made in installments. We further find that plaintiff failed to make the required installment payment due in May, 1976 and that defendant Ickovic properly declared plaintiff in default 30 days later. Ickovic sold part of the property to a third party in September, 1976. Since plaintiff breached the agreement by failing to make the May, 1976 payment, he is not entitled to the return of any moneys previously paid. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 11996: 12001: 12002: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coastal Aviation, Inc. v. Commander Aircraft Co.937 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  2. Kaplan v. Lippman552 N.E.2d 151 (N.Y. 1990)
  3. Jarecki v. Shung Moo Louie745 N.E.2d 1006 (N.Y. 2001)
  4. Boghosian v. SCS Properties, Inc.299 A.D.2d 693 (2002)

Most recent

  1. Boghosian v. SCS Properties, Inc.299 A.D.2d 693 (2002)
  2. Jarecki v. Shung Moo Louie745 N.E.2d 1006 (N.Y. 2001)
  3. Coastal Aviation, Inc. v. Commander Aircraft Co.937 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  4. Kaplan v. Lippman552 N.E.2d 151 (N.Y. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Rottkamp v. Eger, 74 Misc. 2d 858 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list