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.
HALPERN DEVELOPMENT VENTURE, INC., Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for breach of an agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated January 17, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
In 1988 the plaintiff, Halpern Development Venture, Inc., and the defendant Village of North Tarrytown (hereinafter the Village), entered into an agreement which called for the plaintiff to study and propose a revitalization project for the Village's downtown area (hereinafter the 1988 agreement), further details of which are set forth in an earlier decision and order of this court (see, Halpern Dev. Venture v. Board of Trustees, 222 A.D.2d 652, 635 N.Y.S.2d 679). A final redevelopment agreement was never adopted by the Village and the plaintiff sought to recover its costs for the study, alleging, inter alia, that the Board of Trustees of the Village acted in bad faith and in violation of the 1988 agreement in rejecting the redevelopment proposals. We disagree.
The 1988 agreement specifically contemplated that the plaintiff was to bear the financial risk and burden of its proposal and granted the Village the opportunity to withdraw by not approving the final redevelopment agreement. Under the circumstances and in light of all the evidence presented and contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, we find, as a matter of law, that the failure to approve the final redevelopment agreement was not a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the 1988 agreement, but was a discretionary act within the parties' contemplation at the time the 1988 agreement was executed (see, Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 188 N.E. 163; Goodstein Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 49, 489 N.Y.S.2d 175, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 990, 502 N.Y.S.2d 994, 494 N.E.2d 99; Rochester Park v. City of Rochester, 38 Misc.2d 714, 238 N.Y.S.2d 822, affd. 19 A.D.2d 776, 241 N.Y.S.2d 763).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 23, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)