Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Split Rail Holdings LLC v. 176 Grand St. Corp.
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 7967Docket: 7684 652417/16
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 19, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Split Rail Holdings LLC (plaintiff-respondent) successfully sought specific performance against 176 Grand St. Corp. (defendant-appellant) in a case decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, on November 20, 2018. The Supreme Court of New York County had previously granted Split Rail's motion for summary judgment on January 23, 2018, while dismissing Split Rail's breach of contract claim as moot and denying 176 Grand's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding its ninth affirmative defense and its first two counterclaims, which were also dismissed. The court interpreted the lease’s Article 43.A, titled "Option to Purchase Fee Ownership of the Landlord," as granting Split Rail the right to purchase the property, confirming that the lease was valid and not void under the statute of frauds due to proper execution by the corporate president with shareholder consent. The purchase price was determined to be $6,355,477.40, based on ten times the annual rent for Year 15, as stipulated in Article 2(a) of the lease. The ruling emphasized the importance of constructing the lease in a commercially reasonable manner, noting that it would be illogical for 176 Grand to postpone exercising the purchase option beyond year six. The court clarified that specific performance is applicable to commercial property transactions and was warranted since Split Rail was deprived of its contractual right to exercise the purchase option. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision, including the rejection of 176 Grand's defenses and counterclaims, concluding that the summary judgment in favor of Split Rail was appropriate.