Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v. Henry & Warren Corp.green2 sentences2021The "doctrine of definiteness" ( Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp. , 74 NY2d 475, 482 ) should not be "applied with a heavy hand" ( id. at 483 ) or allowed to "defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties in entering into the contract" ( id. ). 2021The "doctrine of definiteness" ( Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp. , 74 NY2d 475, 482 ) should not be "applied with a heavy hand" ( id. at 483 ) or allowed to "defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties in entering into the contract" ( id. ). | 7 | 8 |
Charles Hyman, Inc. v. Olsen Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2013As to plaintiffs contract claim, it is elementary that before a court can enforce a contract, it must establish, first, that the parties intended to be mutually bound by an agreement and, second, what the agreement requires of them, both factors implicating the doctrine of definiteness (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]; see also Charles Hyman, Inc. v Olsen Indus., 227 AD2d 270, 275-276 [1st Dept 1996]). 2013As to plaintiffs contract claim, it is elementary that before a court can enforce a contract, it must establish, first, that the parties intended to be mutually bound by an agreement and, second, what the agreement requires of them, both factors implicating the doctrine of definiteness (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]; see also Charles Hyman, Inc. v Olsen Indus., 227 AD2d 270, 275-276 [1st Dept 1996]). | 2 | 2 |
UETA Latinamerica, Inc. v. Zafirgreen2 sentences2026"The doctrine of definiteness, well established in contract law, 'means that a court cannot enforce a contract unless it is able to determine what in fact the parties have agreed to'" ( id. , quoting Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. 2018"The doctrine of definiteness, well established in contract law, 'means that a court cannot enforce a contract unless it is able to determine what in fact the parties have agreed to' " ( UETA Latinamerica, Inc. v Zafir ,129 AD3d 704, 705 [2015], quoting Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. | 1 | 2 |
Korff v. Corbettgreen1 sentence2017Further, this Court noted, in performing that analysis, that it was to construe the agreement somewhat liberally, since “[a] strict application of the definiteness doctrine could actually defeat the underlying expectations of the contracting parties” ( 18 AD3d at 250 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Mellen & Jayne, Inc. v. AIM Promotions, Inc.green1 sentence2017Under the doctrine of definiteness, a court cannot enforce a contract unless it can determine, with reasonable certainty, the contract's material terms ( see Mellen & Jayne, Inc. v AIM Promotions, Inc. , 33 AD3d 676, 678 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Berley Industries, Inc. v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017Here, the record shows that plaintiff failed to establish the material elements of the alleged agreement and failed to prove the extent of her damages, if any ( see Berley Indus. v City of New York , 45 NY2d 683, 686-687 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
Heyman Cohen & Sons, Inc. v. M. Lurie Woolen Co.green1 sentence2005“The conclusion that a party’s promise should be ignored as meaningless ‘is at best a last resort’ ” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990], quoting Judge Cardozo in Cohen & Sons, Inc. v Lurie Woolen Co., 232 NY 112, 114 [1921]). | 1 | 1 |
Tracy v. . Albany Exchange Co.green1 sentence2004Co., 7 NY 472, 474 [1852]; Matter of Seiden v Francis, 184 AD2d 904, 905 [1992]), the definiteness doctrine is not applied rigidly. | 1 | 1 |
Seiden v. Francisgreen1 sentence2004Co., 7 NY 472, 474 [1852]; Matter of Seiden v Francis, 184 AD2d 904, 905 [1992]), the definiteness doctrine is not applied rigidly. | 1 | 1 |
Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc. v. Henry & Warren Corp.green1 sentence1991A strict application of the definiteness doctrine could actually defeat the underlying expectations of the contracting parties (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henry & Warren Corp. v. Cobble Hill Nursing Home, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016The doctrine of definiteness “assures that courts will not impose contractual obligations when the parties did not intend to conclude a binding agreement” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]). 2015For a court to enforce a purported contract, the proponent must establish, in the first instance, that the parties intended to be mutually bound by an agreement, together with all material terms of the agreement, factors that implicate the doctrine of definiteness (see Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 US 816 [1990]). | 5 | 2005–2016 |
166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v. 151 East Post Road Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Corp., 78 NY2d at 91 ; see Cobble Hill Nursing Home, 74 NY2d at 482-483 ). 2017Corp., 78 NY2d at 91 ; see Cobble Hill Nursing Home, 74 NY2d at 482-483 ). “[W]here 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. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Marshall Granger & Co. CFA's, P.C. v. Sanossian & Sardis, LLP
green
1 sentence2005With respect to indefiniteness, the courts should endeavor to hold parties to their bargain and the definiteness doctrine is a doctrine of last resort (see Marshall Granger & Co., CPAs, P.C. v Sanossian & Sardis, LLP, 15 AD3d 631 [2005]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher
green
1 sentence1991In Martin Delicatessen (supra), we identified two ways in which the requirement of definiteness could be satisfied in the absence of an explicit contract term: (1) an agreement could contain "a methodology for determining the [missing term] * * * within the four corners of the lease, for a [term] so arrived at would have been the end product of agreement between the parties themselves”; or (2) an agreement could "inviteQ recourse to an objective extrinsic event, condition or standard on which the amount was made to depend.” (Id., at 110.) We looked to these principles for guidance when we revi | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.