Search for: "Cobble Hill v. Henry & Warren"
Results 1 - 5
of 5
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2023, 3:13 am
The evidence submitted in support of their motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties had agreed upon a flat fee arrangement as contended by Golub and the Golub companies (see 2978 Gas Corp. v United Fleet, Inc., 197 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2021]; see generally Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989]). [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 3:36 am
Co. v Sorrell, 258 AD2d 782, 783 [1999]), and where it is clear from the language of an agreement that the parties intended to be bound and there exists an objective method for supplying a missing term, the court should endeavor to hold the parties to their bargain (166 Mamaroneck Ave., 78 NY2d at 91; see also Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 [1989] cert denied 498 US 816 [1990] [before rejecting an agreement… [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 4:30 am
In the end, determining whether a non-final contract is nonetheless enforceable is fact intensive, “varying for example with the subject of the agreement, its complexity, the purpose for which the contract was made, the circumstances under which it was made, and the relation of the parties” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v Henry and Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475 [1989]). [read post]
10 May 2010, 3:00 am
Quoting from the New York Court of Appeals' ruling in Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm
”[44] If a letter of intent falls within the first or second category, courts generally do not consider it binding; but if it falls in the third or fourth category, courts generally consider it a binding contract.[45] For example, in Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. [read post]
