Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.

82 A.D.3d 568, 919 N.Y.2d 21

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 568 (Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.) 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

Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 568, 919 N.Y.2d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff purchasers (see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]; Atlantic Dev. Group, LLC v 296 E. 149th St., LLC, 70 AD3d 528 [2010]). “When ‘time of the essence’ is expressly stated, the parties are obligated to strictly comply with the terms of the contract” (Milad v Marcisak, 307 AD2d 281, 282 [2003]). Plaintiffs demonstrated that they were prepared to close on June 9, 2009, and that the “time of the essence” date was set out in the parties’ agreement. This entitled plaintiffs to demand immediate performance. When the seller failed to appear at the closing on June 9, the purchasers were within their rights to declare the seller in default (see Grace v Nappa, 46 NY2d 560, 565-566 [1979]; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC, 74 AD3d 537 [2010]). The fact that the seller claims it was ready and willing to close a day or two after the “law day” is immaterial (see Spiegel v Kessler, 216 AD2d 239, 241 [1995]). Once the seller was in breach, the purchasers had no further duty to entertain the seller’s proposed alternate closing dates (see Grace v Nappa at 566; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC at 537). Accordingly, the motion was properly granted and the cross motion was properly denied. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, [569]*569Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The motion court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff purchasers (see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]; Atlantic Dev. Group, LLC v 296 E. 149th St., LLC, 70 AD3d 528 [2010]). “When ‘time of the essence’ is expressly stated, the parties are obligated to strictly comply with the terms of the contract” (Milad v Marcisak, 307 AD2d 281, 282 [2003]). Plaintiffs demonstrated that they were prepared to close on June 9, 2009, and that the “time of the essence” date was set out in the parties’ agreement. This entitled plaintiffs to demand immediate performance. When the seller failed to appear at the closing on June 9, the purchasers were within their rights to declare the seller in default (see Grace v Nappa, 46 NY2d 560, 565-566 [1979]; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC, 74 AD3d 537 [2010]). The fact that the seller claims it was ready and willing to close a day or two after the “law day” is immaterial (see Spiegel v Kessler, 216 AD2d 239, 241 [1995]). Once the seller was in breach, the purchasers had no further duty to entertain the seller’s proposed alternate closing dates (see Grace v Nappa at 566; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC at 537). Accordingly, the motion was properly granted and the cross motion was properly denied. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, [569]*569Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 568, 919 N.Y.2d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champion-v-blue-water-advisors-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack