, 17 AD3d 1033, 1034), and "t is well settled that the court is vested with broad authority to supervise discovery" ( Faragiano v Town of Concord, 294 AD2d 893, 893). We note in particular that "every court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action" ( Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 see Lidge v Niagara Falls Mem. Additionally, it cannot be said that the court erred in sua sponte issuing a new discovery scheduling order. Further, Harnischfeger did not move to sanction plaintiffs for frivolous conduct, and thus the court properly declined to grant Harnischfeger's "informal request" for that relief ( Blam v Netcher, 17 AD3d 495, 496). On this record, we perceive no "willful or contumacious" conduct by plaintiffs in the failure to complete plaintiff Filippo Pino's deposition ( Wolfson v Calamel, 162 AD2d 959, 959-960). Also contrary to defendants' contentions, the court neither abused its discretion nor improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the cross motion of DDS seeking an order sanctioning plaintiffs for failing to complete a deposition. Once a mechanic's lien expires pursuant to Lien Law ยง 17, it may not be revived or further extended by court order ( see Zoerb Co., 134 AD2d 826). 1 that the court properly denied that part of the cross motion of DDS for leave to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim for foreclosure of its mechanic's lien. We conclude with respect to the order in appeal No.Harnischfeger, individually and doing business as Jacobson Development, also known as Jacobsen Development, and as modified the order is affirmed with costs to plaintiffs payable by that defendant. It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns the mechanic's lien be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed ( see Canh Du v Hamell, 19 AD3d 1000, 1001) and the order is modified on the law by granting the motion in its entirety and dismissing in their entirety the counterclaims of defendant Kurt Harnischfeger, also known as Kurt H. ![]() The failure to include some formula or methodology in the contract whereby plaintiffs would be paid the full contract price at some ascertainable date in the future renders the contract unenforceable under the statute of frauds ( see generally Cobble Hill Nursing Home, 74 NY2d at 483 Willmott, 5 NY2d at 253 Sheehan, 99 AD2d at 545). There was no contractual provision accounting for that shortfall to the seller, e.g., a provision requiring the principal balance of the mortgage to be paid by a certain date in the future. The only provision for payment of the purchase money mortgage was that it be paid "in the amount of $35,000 per lot upon the closing of each lot by Buyer." Only 12 lots were approved for the subdivision, however, and, thus, upon the closing of all of the lots, the seller would receive only the amount of $420,000. Here, the contract provided that the purchase price was $455,000 "egardless of the number of lots for which Buyer gets approval." The purchase price was to be paid by the buyer at closing by the delivery of a purchase money bond and mortgage in the amount of the full purchase price to the seller. is unsettled and left for future negotiations, the agreement is unenforceable under the tatute of rauds" ( Sheehan v Culotta, 99 AD2d 544, 545 see Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 NY2d 250, 253). ![]() "Where an essential element of the contemplated contract, such as the price. The price and terms of payment are essential elements of a contract for the sale of real property ( see Bonner v Septimus, 137 AD2d 484, 485 Janowitz Bros. ![]() ![]() "If an agreement is not reasonably certain in its material terms, there can be no legally enforceable contract" ( Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482, rearg denied 75 NY2d 863, cert denied 498 US 816 see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109-110).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |