¶1*761Plaintiff failed to timely exercise her option to purchase defendant’s interest in the marital residence in the clear and explicit manner stated in the separation agreement; to wit, by certified mail on or before a stated date. There are no issues of fact calling for a hearing on the motion. Further, the facts alleged by plaintiff at Special Term as to conversations prior to the option date do not constitute an estoppel against defendant. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
110 A.D.2d 760
Remetich v. Remetich
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 15, 1985
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1985-04-15
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1990
1 federal appellate ·
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“in the clear and explicit manner stated in the separation agreement”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Rajala v. Allied Corp.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1985-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →