Feldman v. Fraiman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldman v. Fraiman

28 A.D.2d 1126, 284 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1126 (Feldman v. Fraiman) 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

Feldman v. Fraiman, 28 A.D.2d 1126, 284 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: It is time that the difference in treatment, depending on whether an action is in law or in equity, of a failure to perform on the closing date in a contract for the sale of real property (in the absence of a provision making the date of closing of the essence of the contract) be abolished (cf. Grady v. Balmain, 28 A D 2d 702). The equitable rule that a notice making time of the essence must first be given to the party to be charged should be adopted, no matter what the form of the action may be. I vote to affirm here, however, because plaintiff failed to show his ability to perform within the time he requested for the adjournment of the closing.

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

No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: It is time that the difference in treatment, depending on whether an action is in law or in equity, of a failure to perform on the closing date in a contract for the sale of real property (in the absence of a provision making the date of closing of the essence of the contract) be abolished (cf. Grady v. Balmain, 28 A D 2d 702). The equitable rule that a notice making time of the essence must first be given to the party to be charged should be adopted, no matter what the form of the action may be. I vote to affirm here, however, because plaintiff failed to show his ability to perform within the time he requested for the adjournment of the closing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1126, 284 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldman-v-fraiman-nyappdiv-1967.