28 Properties, Inc. v. Akleh Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

28 Properties, Inc. v. Akleh Realty Corp.

22 A.D.3d 432, 803 N.Y.S.2d 62

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered March 11, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiffs claim for specific performance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence comported with the court’s conclusion that plaintiff did not meet its burden to demonstrate that it was, within a reasonable time after the non-time of the essence closing date, ready, willing and able to tender performance of its obligations as purchaser under the parties’ real estate contract (see Goller Place Corp. v Cacase, 251 AD2d 287 [1998]). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate until some four years subsequent to the original closing date that it was financially able to close. That defendants may, in the interim, have anticipatorily breached the contract, did not excuse plaintiff from a timely tender of its performance, if the contract was to be specifically enforced (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438 [2004]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered March 11, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiffs claim for specific performance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence comported with the court’s conclusion that plaintiff did not meet its burden to demonstrate that it was, within a reasonable time after the non-time of the essence closing date, ready, willing and able to tender performance of its obligations as purchaser under the parties’ real estate contract (see Goller Place Corp. v Cacase, 251 AD2d 287 [1998]). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate until some four years subsequent to the original closing date that it was financially able to close. That defendants may, in the interim, have anticipatorily breached the contract, did not excuse plaintiff from a timely tender of its performance, if the contract was to be specifically enforced (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438 [2004]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

28 Properties, Inc. v. Akleh Realty Corp., 22 A.D.3d 432, 803 N.Y.S.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 432 (28 Properties, Inc. v. Akleh Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related