Cohen v. Spodek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Spodek

168 A.D.2d 533, 563 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15648

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 533 (Cohen v. Spodek) 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

Cohen v. Spodek, 168 A.D.2d 533, 563 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions for specific performance of contracts for the purchase of two parcels of real property, the defendants in both actions appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated December 22, 1988, which granted the plaintiff buyers’ motions to confirm a Referee’s report dated May 12, 1988, and is in favor of the plaintiffs directing specific performance of the contracts.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions on appeal, they are not entitled to adjustments not provided for in either of the parties’ two contracts in issue. Generally speaking, a seller under contract to convey at a future date is not entitled, in the absence of agreement, to any compensation for improvements made by him without the buyer’s consent after the contract has been executed (see, 92 CJS, Vendor & Purchaser, §§ 291-292). Furthermore, the court properly directed that the allowable adjustments should be computed as of the date of closing (see, 1 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Closing of Title, 8.05-8.17 [4th ed]).

The defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs improperly failed to produce paid-up insurance policies at the closing is also without merit. The parties’ contracts did not impose upon the plaintiffs such an obligation. This court will not rewrite contracts whose terms are clear and unambiguous so as to impose such an obligation (see, e.g., Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971; [534]*534Shames v Abel, 141 AD2d 531). We note that the plaintiffs produced insurance binders.

We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions for specific performance of contracts for the purchase of two parcels of real property, the defendants in both actions appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated December 22, 1988, which granted the plaintiff buyers’ motions to confirm a Referee’s report dated May 12, 1988, and is in favor of the plaintiffs directing specific performance of the contracts.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions on appeal, they are not entitled to adjustments not provided for in either of the parties’ two contracts in issue. Generally speaking, a seller under contract to convey at a future date is not entitled, in the absence of agreement, to any compensation for improvements made by him without the buyer’s consent after the contract has been executed (see, 92 CJS, Vendor & Purchaser, §§ 291-292). Furthermore, the court properly directed that the allowable adjustments should be computed as of the date of closing (see, 1 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Closing of Title, 8.05-8.17 [4th ed]).

The defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs improperly failed to produce paid-up insurance policies at the closing is also without merit. The parties’ contracts did not impose upon the plaintiffs such an obligation. This court will not rewrite contracts whose terms are clear and unambiguous so as to impose such an obligation (see, e.g., Fiore v Fiore, 46 NY2d 971; [534]*534Shames v Abel, 141 AD2d 531). We note that the plaintiffs produced insurance binders.

We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 533, 563 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-spodek-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack