Naldi v. Grunberg
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
908 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2010)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
On February 9, 2007, Italy-based Robert Naldi (plaintiff) offered to purchase a building owned by Michael Grunberg and Grunberg 55 LLC (collectively, Grunberg) (defendants) for $50 million. On February 12, Grunberg’s broker made a counteroffer by email, proposing a $52 million price and stating that Naldi would have a right of first refusal if Grunberg received a legitimate offer from a third party. Naldi proceeded to conduct expensive due diligence about the property, including activities that involved Grunberg’s cooperation. On February 16, Grunberg’s attorney sent a draft purchase contract to Naldi’s counsel. The draft contract, which did not mention a right of first refusal, specified a $50 million purchase price. Naldi subsequently learned that Grunberg was considering selling the property to another buyer for $52 million, at which time Naldi attempted to exercise his claimed right of first refusal to match the competing offer. Grunberg rejected Naldi’s effort and sold the property to the other buyer. Naldi sued Grunberg, arguing that Grunberg granted him a valid right of first refusal, which Grunberg breached. Grunberg moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that, among other things, (1) there was no meeting of the minds and (2) the statute of frauds barred the right of first refusal because an email is not a writing under the statute of frauds. The trial court denied Grunberg’s motion. Grunberg appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Friedman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.