Austin v. Trybus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Trybus

136 A.D.2d 940, 524 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 940 (Austin v. Trybus) 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

Austin v. Trybus, 136 A.D.2d 940, 524 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Parties to a real estate contract have an implied obligation to deal fairly and to act in good faith (McKenna v Case, 123 AD2d 517; Norgate Homes v Central State Bank, 82 AD2d 849) and where no time is expressed in the agreement for the performance of conditions, there is an implied duty to perform within a reasonable time (Trustees of Union Coll, v City of New York, 173 NY 38; Friedman, [941]*941Contracts and Conveyances of Real Property § 1.5, at 145 [4th ed]; 1 Tiffany, Real Property § 202 [3d ed]). Although reasonableness is ordinarily a question of fact, we conclude that the buyer’s failure to contact an attorney for more than three months after acceptance of the purchase offer and the attorney’s delay in disapproving the contract until the date of closing were, under the facts of this case, unreasonable as a matter of law and that the condition of attorney approval ceased to exist because it was not timely exercised. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Parties to a real estate contract have an implied obligation to deal fairly and to act in good faith (McKenna v Case, 123 AD2d 517; Norgate Homes v Central State Bank, 82 AD2d 849) and where no time is expressed in the agreement for the performance of conditions, there is an implied duty to perform within a reasonable time (Trustees of Union Coll, v City of New York, 173 NY 38; Friedman, [941]*941Contracts and Conveyances of Real Property § 1.5, at 145 [4th ed]; 1 Tiffany, Real Property § 202 [3d ed]). Although reasonableness is ordinarily a question of fact, we conclude that the buyer’s failure to contact an attorney for more than three months after acceptance of the purchase offer and the attorney’s delay in disapproving the contract until the date of closing were, under the facts of this case, unreasonable as a matter of law and that the condition of attorney approval ceased to exist because it was not timely exercised. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 940, 524 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-trybus-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack