Tobias v. Lynch 233 N.Y. 515

Edward Tobias, Respondent, v. Annie E. Lynch, Appellant.

Contract — specific performance — real property — Statute of Frauds — sufficiency of memorandum of sale of real property—failure to distinguish between grantor and grantee — omission of date of closing.

Tobias v. Lynch, 192 App. Div. 54, affirmed.

(Submitted January 27, 1922;

decided February 28, 1922.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 28, 1920, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the Kings County Court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was to compel specific performance of an alleged contract to sell real property. The following memorandum of sale was attacked as insufficient under the Statute of Frauds because it failed to distinguish between the purchaser and seller and because the date for closing was omitted:

„ May ^ lgm

“ Agreement between Mrs. Annie E. Lynch

and

Edward Tobias

“ For sale of house number 1142 E. 13th St., Bklyn., sale price $4,250, subject to 1st of $3,000 and lease to Sam J. Heines expiring May 1st, 1920.

“ Deposit $50.00. ANNIE E. LYNCH,

“ Edw. Tobias.”

The objections were overruled, the Appellate Division holding that parol proof was admissible to show which of the parties named was the grantor and which the grantee and that in the absence of a fixed time for closing *516the law provides that the contract shall be closed within a reasonable time.

J. Nathan Helfat for appellant.

Clarence G. Bachrach, Herman S. Bachrach and Simon Berg for respondent.