American Funding, Inc. v. Petbar Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Funding, Inc. v. Petbar Realty Co.

238 A.D.2d 258, 657 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315

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

DecidedApril 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 258 (American Funding, Inc. v. Petbar Realty Co.) 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

American Funding, Inc. v. Petbar Realty Co., 238 A.D.2d 258, 657 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which, in an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, granted plaintiff buyer’s motion to reargue a prior order granting defendant seller’s motion for summary judgment, and, upon reargument, granted plaintiff summary judgment upon a search of the record, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes that plaintiff was able and willing to perform, defendants were unable to convey "free and clear of any liens and violations” as required by the contract. Any issue that defendants remove asbestos from the building basement was not raised until long after defendants defaulted (see, [259]*259United States v 0.35 Acre of Land, 706 F Supp 1064, 1074). The provision for a $500,000 loan from defendant to plaintiff, "in order to assist Purchaser to finance the purchase of the Property”, was clearly for plaintiff’s benefit, and therefore could be waived by plaintiff (see, Poteralski v Colombe, 84 AD2d 887). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which, in an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, granted plaintiff buyer’s motion to reargue a prior order granting defendant seller’s motion for summary judgment, and, upon reargument, granted plaintiff summary judgment upon a search of the record, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes that plaintiff was able and willing to perform, defendants were unable to convey "free and clear of any liens and violations” as required by the contract. Any issue that defendants remove asbestos from the building basement was not raised until long after defendants defaulted (see, [259]*259United States v 0.35 Acre of Land, 706 F Supp 1064, 1074). The provision for a $500,000 loan from defendant to plaintiff, "in order to assist Purchaser to finance the purchase of the Property”, was clearly for plaintiff’s benefit, and therefore could be waived by plaintiff (see, Poteralski v Colombe, 84 AD2d 887). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 258, 657 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-funding-inc-v-petbar-realty-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack