Addesso v. Shemtob

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Addesso v. Shemtob

122 A.D.2d 754, 505 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59280

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 754 (Addesso v. Shemtob) 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

Addesso v. Shemtob, 122 A.D.2d 754, 505 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated August 5, 1985, which, upon the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, directed specific performance of the contract.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The defendants do not contest on appeal that they were required under a contract for the sale of real property to discharge their $70,000 mortgage by the time of closing, when the deed to the property was to be delivered to the plaintiff with marketable title free of all encumbrances. However, they claim that the trial court cannot order them to do something they are unable to do; that is, they cannot convey the land with marketable title as required by the contract because they [755]*755are unable to pay the mortgage since: (1) they do "not have the economic power” to do so, and (2) they do not want to pay the mortgage "because of a question of the amount thereof — a matter between the defendants and their mortgagee, which is substantial”.

We find that nothing prevents the defendants from paying this mortgage and complying with the contract. The defendants could pay the mortgage out of the proceeds of the purchase price (see, e.g., Webster v Kings County Trust Co., 145 NY 275; Check-Mate Indus. v Say Assoc., 104 AD2d 392). We also note that specific performance in this case would not impose any undue or considerable hardship on the defendants as the amount of the purchase price is more than ample to cover the costs of delivering the deed to the property to the plaintiff with a marketable title free of encumbrances as required by the contract (see, e.g., Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543; Glasser v Loughran, 103 Misc 20).

We have reviewed the defendants’ claim of lack of personal jurisdiction and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated August 5, 1985, which, upon the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, directed specific performance of the contract.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The defendants do not contest on appeal that they were required under a contract for the sale of real property to discharge their $70,000 mortgage by the time of closing, when the deed to the property was to be delivered to the plaintiff with marketable title free of all encumbrances. However, they claim that the trial court cannot order them to do something they are unable to do; that is, they cannot convey the land with marketable title as required by the contract because they [755]*755are unable to pay the mortgage since: (1) they do "not have the economic power” to do so, and (2) they do not want to pay the mortgage "because of a question of the amount thereof — a matter between the defendants and their mortgagee, which is substantial”.

We find that nothing prevents the defendants from paying this mortgage and complying with the contract. The defendants could pay the mortgage out of the proceeds of the purchase price (see, e.g., Webster v Kings County Trust Co., 145 NY 275; Check-Mate Indus. v Say Assoc., 104 AD2d 392). We also note that specific performance in this case would not impose any undue or considerable hardship on the defendants as the amount of the purchase price is more than ample to cover the costs of delivering the deed to the property to the plaintiff with a marketable title free of encumbrances as required by the contract (see, e.g., Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543; Glasser v Loughran, 103 Misc 20).

We have reviewed the defendants’ claim of lack of personal jurisdiction and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 754, 505 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addesso-v-shemtob-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack