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.
GENE C. TINGUE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LESLIE A. SPENCER, MARTHA GOMEZ, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the award to defendant Martha Gomez of $50,000 for property damage and attorney's fees, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action seeking, inter alia, specific performance of a purported “purchase contract” (contract), plaintiff appeals from an order entered following a bench trial that, inter alia, dismissed the complaint, granted that part of defendant Martha Gomez's third counterclaim seeking plaintiff's eviction, and awarded Gomez money damages and attorney's fees. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that the contract was unenforceable for failure to comply with the statute of frauds (see Pino v Harnischfeger, 42 AD3d 980, 984 [4th Dept 2007]; see also Congdon v Everett, 63 AD3d 1541, 1541 [4th Dept 2009]; see generally Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], rearg denied 75 NY2d 863 [1990], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]). We agree with plaintiff, however, that Gomez failed to establish the monetary value of any damages (see Patton v Modern Asian, Inc., 208 AD3d 1491, 1494 [3d Dept 2022]; see also Esposito v Larig, 241 AD3d 782, 786 [2d Dept 2025]), and we therefore modify the order by vacating the award to Gomez of $50,000 for property damage and attorney's fees.
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants further modification or reversal of the order.
Entered: July 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
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: 424
Decided: July 24, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)