Brescia v. Abad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brescia v. Abad

154 A.D.2d 325, 545 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 325 (Brescia v. Abad) 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

Brescia v. Abad, 154 A.D.2d 325, 545 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated April 20, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The contract for sale entered into by the parties contained a mortgage contingency clause whereby the contract would be deemed canceled if the purchaser failed to secure a firm mortgage commitment within the specific time period. Since the plaintiff purchaser failed to obtain a mortgage commitment within the period specified, the defendant sellers had the authority to cancel the contract and return the purchaser’s down payment (see, Grossman v Perlman, 132 AD2d 522).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated April 20, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The contract for sale entered into by the parties contained a mortgage contingency clause whereby the contract would be deemed canceled if the purchaser failed to secure a firm mortgage commitment within the specific time period. Since the plaintiff purchaser failed to obtain a mortgage commitment within the period specified, the defendant sellers had the authority to cancel the contract and return the purchaser’s down payment (see, Grossman v Perlman, 132 AD2d 522).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 325, 545 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brescia-v-abad-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack