Case ID: ny_223/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. M. Weill Company, Appellant, v. Albertina D. Creveling, Respondent.
    
      Weill Co. v. Creveling, 181 App. Div. 282, affirmed.
    (Argued April 23, 1918;
    decided May 7, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered January 31, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant for judgment in her favor upon the pleadings and granted said motion. The cause of action alleged in the complaint was for specific performance of the following instrument:
    
      “Feb. 13, 1917.
    
      “ For the consideration of One Dollar to me in hand paid by the H. M. Weill Co. I agree to deliver to the H. M. Weill a lease for 21 years on property No. 243 West 55th, Manhattan, on the following terms: Rent to be for the first (2) years $2,600 gross rental. (3) years at $3,000 net rental. 5 years at the rate of $4,000 net rental and 11 years at a reappraisal of 5% but never to be less than $4,000 net rental. A further renewal of (21) years to be granted after the expiration of the first term at a reappraisal of 5% of the value at that time by experts. The H. M. Weill Co. to improve the said property to the extent of no less than $10,000. The rent to begin March 1, 1917.
    “ Witness.
    " (sgd) A. D. CREVELING,
    
      “ 145 W. 4th Street,
    “ N. Y. City.”
    The Appellate Division held that the paper constituted nothing but an agreement to agree and was therefore, unenforceable by specific performance.
    
      Julius M. Lowenstein and Sidney Rossman for appellant.
    
      Percival C. Smith for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and McLaughlin, JJ.