ADC Orange, Inc. v. Coyote Acres, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ADC Orange, Inc. v. Coyote Acres, Inc.

111 A.D.3d 771, 975 N.Y.S.2d 352

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.3d 771 (ADC Orange, Inc. v. Coyote Acres, Inc.) 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

ADC Orange, Inc. v. Coyote Acres, Inc., 111 A.D.3d 771, 975 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Marx, J.), dated February 29, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court (McGuirk, J.), dated November 28, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the subject contract was warranted by the facts (see ADC Orange, Inc. v Coyote Acres, Inc., 7 NY3d 484 [2006]; Cipriano v Glen Cove Lodge #1458, B.P.O.E., 1 NY3d 53 [2003]; Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 60 NY2d 997 [1983]; Kooleraire Serv. & Installation Corp. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 28 NY2d 101, 106 [1971]). Thus, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Dillon, J.R, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Marx, J.), dated February 29, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court (McGuirk, J.), dated November 28, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the subject contract was warranted by the facts (see ADC Orange, Inc. v Coyote Acres, Inc., 7 NY3d 484 [2006]; Cipriano v Glen Cove Lodge #1458, B.P.O.E., 1 NY3d 53 [2003]; Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 60 NY2d 997 [1983]; Kooleraire Serv. & Installation Corp. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 28 NY2d 101, 106 [1971]). Thus, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. Dillon, J.R, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 771, 975 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adc-orange-inc-v-coyote-acres-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack