Chappaqua Building Corp. v. RGF Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chappaqua Building Corp. v. RGF Development Corp.

173 A.D.2d 671, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8193

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

DecidedMay 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 671 (Chappaqua Building Corp. v. RGF Development Corp.) 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

Chappaqua Building Corp. v. RGF Development Corp., 173 A.D.2d 671, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for the recovery of the down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated October 17, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the language of the subject contract, together with the parties’ conduct, established that the initial closing date specified by the contract was not intended to be a "time of the essence” date. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a reasonable adjournment to complete performance of its obligations under the contract (see, 3M Holding Corp. v Wagner, 166 AD2d 580; 4200 Ave. K [672]*672Realty Corp. v 4200 Realty Co., 123 AD2d 419). The plaintiffs refusal to grant a reasonable adjournment thus constituted a wrongful repudiation of the contract, which bars the plaintiff from recovery of its down payment (see, Leading Bldg. Corp. v Segrete, 60 AD2d 907). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for the recovery of the down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated October 17, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the language of the subject contract, together with the parties’ conduct, established that the initial closing date specified by the contract was not intended to be a "time of the essence” date. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a reasonable adjournment to complete performance of its obligations under the contract (see, 3M Holding Corp. v Wagner, 166 AD2d 580; 4200 Ave. K [672]*672Realty Corp. v 4200 Realty Co., 123 AD2d 419). The plaintiffs refusal to grant a reasonable adjournment thus constituted a wrongful repudiation of the contract, which bars the plaintiff from recovery of its down payment (see, Leading Bldg. Corp. v Segrete, 60 AD2d 907). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 671, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chappaqua-building-corp-v-rgf-development-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack