Coram Professional Building Associates v. Route 347 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coram Professional Building Associates v. Route 347 Realty Corp.

171 A.D.2d 722, 567 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants defaulted on two related contracts for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated September 8, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although a certificate of occupancy indicates that the building on the premises which was the subject of one of the contracts of sale conforms substantially with the zoning ordinance (cf., CPLR 4520), the defendants submitted evidence purporting to demonstrate that there are insufficient parking spaces for a building of that size and that therefore large portions of it are presently legally unusable. Since the record raises an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff seller was [723] able to convey marketable title in accordance with the terms of the contracts (cf., DeJong v Mandelbaum, 122 AD2d 772, 774), the Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion for summary judgment. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants defaulted on two related contracts for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated September 8, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although a certificate of occupancy indicates that the building on the premises which was the subject of one of the contracts of sale conforms substantially with the zoning ordinance (cf., CPLR 4520), the defendants submitted evidence purporting to demonstrate that there are insufficient parking spaces for a building of that size and that therefore large portions of it are presently legally unusable. Since the record raises an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff seller was [723] able to convey marketable title in accordance with the terms of the contracts (cf., DeJong v Mandelbaum, 122 AD2d 772, 774), the Supreme Court properly denied the motion and cross motion for summary judgment. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Coram Professional Building Associates v. Route 347 Realty Corp., 171 A.D.2d 722, 567 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

171 A.D.2d 722 (Coram Professional Building Associates v. Route 347 Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related