Alavian v. Zane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alavian v. Zane

101 A.D.3d 475, 956 N.Y.2d 10

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 475 (Alavian v. Zane) 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

Alavian v. Zane, 101 A.D.3d 475, 956 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs assert that, for a period of over four years, defendants deliberately interfered with the closing of executed contracts of sale of two cooperative apartments. It is undisputed, however, that the contracts satisfactorily closed in August 2011. Delay, even “substantial delay,” in the closing of a real estate transaction does not constitute breach of the contract of sale (Ulysses I & Co., Inc. v Feldstein, 75 AD3d 990, 992 [3d Dept [476]*4762010], lv dismissed in part, denied in part, 15 NY3d 944 [2010]). Accordingly, since there was no “actual breach” of the contracts of sale, plaintiffs may not maintain a claim for tortious interference with contract against Zane (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/ Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614, 620-621 [1996]; Ulysses, 75 AD3d at 991-992).

We note that plaintiffs’ only other claim against Zane, for injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing him from interference with the closing, was mooted by the fact that the closing has occurred. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, De-Grasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs assert that, for a period of over four years, defendants deliberately interfered with the closing of executed contracts of sale of two cooperative apartments. It is undisputed, however, that the contracts satisfactorily closed in August 2011. Delay, even “substantial delay,” in the closing of a real estate transaction does not constitute breach of the contract of sale (Ulysses I & Co., Inc. v Feldstein, 75 AD3d 990, 992 [3d Dept [476]*4762010], lv dismissed in part, denied in part, 15 NY3d 944 [2010]). Accordingly, since there was no “actual breach” of the contracts of sale, plaintiffs may not maintain a claim for tortious interference with contract against Zane (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/ Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614, 620-621 [1996]; Ulysses, 75 AD3d at 991-992).

We note that plaintiffs’ only other claim against Zane, for injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing him from interference with the closing, was mooted by the fact that the closing has occurred. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, De-Grasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 475, 956 N.Y.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alavian-v-zane-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack