77 Hudson, LLC v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

77 Hudson, LLC v. Lawrence

2016 NY Slip Op 6902, 143 A.D.3d 590, 38 N.Y.S.3d 904

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 20, 2016

Docket2030 157867/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6902 (77 Hudson, LLC v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

77 Hudson, LLC v. Lawrence, 2016 NY Slip Op 6902, 143 A.D.3d 590, 38 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*591 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered April 18, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking return of its deposit for the purchase of defendant’s condominium, unanimously affirmed.

The record presents numerous triable issues of facts with respect to whether the contract required that the HVAC permit be “signed off” on by the Department of Buildings before certain renovations could be considered completed, whether buyer waived any delays caused by the bathroom renovations, by agreeing to adjournments of the closing date (see Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y. v Block 3102 Corp., 180 AD2d 588, 590 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 754 [1992]), whether buyer was ready, willing and able to close on any of the dates, and whether the email correspondence between the parties sufficiently put seller on notice of a definitive closing date and that failure to close on that date would result in an event of default and termination of the contract (Westreich v Bosler, 106 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

*591 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered April 18, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking return of its deposit for the purchase of defendant’s condominium, unanimously affirmed.

The record presents numerous triable issues of facts with respect to whether the contract required that the HVAC permit be “signed off” on by the Department of Buildings before certain renovations could be considered completed, whether buyer waived any delays caused by the bathroom renovations, by agreeing to adjournments of the closing date (see Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y. v Block 3102 Corp., 180 AD2d 588, 590 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 754 [1992]), whether buyer was ready, willing and able to close on any of the dates, and whether the email correspondence between the parties sufficiently put seller on notice of a definitive closing date and that failure to close on that date would result in an event of default and termination of the contract (Westreich v Bosler, 106 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6902, 143 A.D.3d 590, 38 N.Y.S.3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/77-hudson-llc-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack