D'Anthony v. Lender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Anthony v. Lender

262 A.D.2d 247, 693 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7772

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

DecidedJune 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 247 (D'Anthony v. Lender) 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

D'Anthony v. Lender, 262 A.D.2d 247, 693 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which, in an action for specific performance of a contract to sell a cooperative apartment, denied plaintiff buyer’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s decision after trial held that defendant seller was under no obligation to convey because plaintiff’s failure to supply all necessary documentation requested by the coop’s Board resulted in her never obtaining the Board’s consent, a condition of the sale. The so-called “true contract” upon which plaintiff now relies, which, inter alia, allegedly deleted the provision conditioning the sale upon plaintiff’s obtaining the [248]*248Board’s consent thereto, does not qualify as newly-discovered evidence. First, the “true contract” was actually in plaintiffs attorney’s possession for over a year prior to trial, and it appears that a deliberate decision, tactical in nature, was made not to use it (see, Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 230 AD2d 32, 39). Plaintiffs argument that defendant committed fraud on the court in not producing the “true contract” is without merit, where plaintiff never demanded that defendant produce it, and where neither party at trial disputed that the operative contract was that which was annexed to the complaint (see, DiIorio v Gibson & Cushman, 166 AD2d 334, 335). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which, in an action for specific performance of a contract to sell a cooperative apartment, denied plaintiff buyer’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s decision after trial held that defendant seller was under no obligation to convey because plaintiff’s failure to supply all necessary documentation requested by the coop’s Board resulted in her never obtaining the Board’s consent, a condition of the sale. The so-called “true contract” upon which plaintiff now relies, which, inter alia, allegedly deleted the provision conditioning the sale upon plaintiff’s obtaining the [248]*248Board’s consent thereto, does not qualify as newly-discovered evidence. First, the “true contract” was actually in plaintiffs attorney’s possession for over a year prior to trial, and it appears that a deliberate decision, tactical in nature, was made not to use it (see, Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 230 AD2d 32, 39). Plaintiffs argument that defendant committed fraud on the court in not producing the “true contract” is without merit, where plaintiff never demanded that defendant produce it, and where neither party at trial disputed that the operative contract was that which was annexed to the complaint (see, DiIorio v Gibson & Cushman, 166 AD2d 334, 335). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 247, 693 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danthony-v-lender-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack