Cortlandt Centre, L. L. C. v. Mayore Estates L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cortlandt Centre, L. L. C. v. Mayore Estates L. L. C.

261 A.D.2d 311, 691 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776

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

DecidedMay 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 311 (Cortlandt Centre, L. L. C. v. Mayore Estates L. L. C.) 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

Cortlandt Centre, L. L. C. v. Mayore Estates L. L. C., 261 A.D.2d 311, 691 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 24, 1998, which, in an action to recover a down payment given in connection with a contract for the sale of real property, inter alia, denied defendant sellers’ motion to cancel plaintiff buyer’s notice of pendency, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Return of plaintiff’s contract deposits was properly directed in view of the clear and unambiguous contract language mak[312]*312ing the mortgage holder’s written consent to the contract a condition precedent to plaintiff’s obligation to close. All modifications, including waivers of the above condition, were required to be in writing, and there is no such writing. There is also no evidence that plaintiff’s direct negotiations with the mortgagee hindered or prevented defendants from obtaining a consent in the form indicated in the parties’ side agreement. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 24, 1998, which, in an action to recover a down payment given in connection with a contract for the sale of real property, inter alia, denied defendant sellers’ motion to cancel plaintiff buyer’s notice of pendency, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Return of plaintiff’s contract deposits was properly directed in view of the clear and unambiguous contract language mak[312]*312ing the mortgage holder’s written consent to the contract a condition precedent to plaintiff’s obligation to close. All modifications, including waivers of the above condition, were required to be in writing, and there is no such writing. There is also no evidence that plaintiff’s direct negotiations with the mortgagee hindered or prevented defendants from obtaining a consent in the form indicated in the parties’ side agreement. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 311, 691 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortlandt-centre-l-l-c-v-mayore-estates-l-l-c-nyappdiv-1999.