Calverton Associates, Inc. v. Kempermann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calverton Associates, Inc. v. Kempermann

262 A.D.2d 262, 690 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 262 (Calverton Associates, Inc. v. Kempermann) 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

Calverton Associates, Inc. v. Kempermann, 262 A.D.2d 262, 690 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 27, 1998, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the return of their $10,000 down payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to show that it was able to convey marketable title to the defendants on the final day set by it for the closing. It then breached its contract with the defendants by selling the subject property to a third party prior to setting a new closing date. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion (see, Gargano v Rubin, 200 AD2d 554; cf., Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 58 AD2d 853, affd 44 NY2d 702).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 27, 1998, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the return of their $10,000 down payment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to show that it was able to convey marketable title to the defendants on the final day set by it for the closing. It then breached its contract with the defendants by selling the subject property to a third party prior to setting a new closing date. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion (see, Gargano v Rubin, 200 AD2d 554; cf., Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 58 AD2d 853, affd 44 NY2d 702).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 262, 690 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calverton-associates-inc-v-kempermann-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack