Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Estate of Saul Spitz, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gary Pokoik, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Davin Pokoik, Defendant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered June 24, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the facts alleged therein as true, according plaintiff estate the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determining that the facts alleged fit within a cognizable legal theory (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88 [1994] ), dismissal of the fourth cause of action nonetheless was proper. Defendants' written offer stated that plaintiff's decedent Saul Spitz could manage the property “act[ing] alone or retain[ing] your own management company at your own expense.” Even assuming that the phrase “your own management company” can be construed as “a management company,” rather than a management company in which decedent had an ownership interest, decedent's purported acceptance designated an individual to manage the property rather than a management company. Thus, there was no valid acceptance of the offer and the breach of contract claim properly was dismissed. As decedent's estate seeks an accounting with respect to decedent's interest in the property elsewhere in the complaint, the dismissal of the fourth cause of action in its entirety causes no prejudice.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1987
Decided: November 04, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)