Gartner v. Young-Hee Lowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gartner v. Young-Hee Lowe

299 A.D.2d 198, 749 N.Y.S.2d 134, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 198 (Gartner v. Young-Hee Lowe) 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

Gartner v. Young-Hee Lowe, 299 A.D.2d 198, 749 N.Y.S.2d 134, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered July 12, 2001, after a nonjury trial, which denied plaintiff purchaser’s claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, or, alternatively, for damages; granted defendant seller’s request to declare the contract validly canceled as of April 16, 1997; denied defendant’s counterclaims for damages; and directed defendant to return plaintiff’s down payment, with interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff purchaser was not entitled to specific performance or damages because defendant seller validly canceled the contract pursuant to an exculpatory clause when she was unable to remove a tenant in her building prior to closing, and plaintiff did not indicate a willingness to accept the building with the tenant in occupancy.

Plaintiff was on notice that the basement apartment at issue was occupied prior to the execution of the contract. Since there is no evidence that defendant concealed anything that plaintiff could not have discovered for himself by appropriate inquiry, the trial court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Howard v Weaver, 244 AD2d 225).

The trial court correctly determined that defendant’s claims of fraud and unclean hands on the part of plaintiff were without merit. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom and Lerner, 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 (Emily Goodman, J.), entered July 12, 2001, after a nonjury trial, which denied plaintiff purchaser’s claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, or, alternatively, for damages; granted defendant seller’s request to declare the contract validly canceled as of April 16, 1997; denied defendant’s counterclaims for damages; and directed defendant to return plaintiff’s down payment, with interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff purchaser was not entitled to specific performance or damages because defendant seller validly canceled the contract pursuant to an exculpatory clause when she was unable to remove a tenant in her building prior to closing, and plaintiff did not indicate a willingness to accept the building with the tenant in occupancy.

Plaintiff was on notice that the basement apartment at issue was occupied prior to the execution of the contract. Since there is no evidence that defendant concealed anything that plaintiff could not have discovered for himself by appropriate inquiry, the trial court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Howard v Weaver, 244 AD2d 225).

The trial court correctly determined that defendant’s claims of fraud and unclean hands on the part of plaintiff were without merit. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 198, 749 N.Y.S.2d 134, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gartner-v-young-hee-lowe-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack