Goldstein v. Held

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Held

37 A.D.3d 657, 830 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 657 (Goldstein v. Held) 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

Goldstein v. Held, 37 A.D.3d 657, 830 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated February 17, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon a decision of the same court dated January 26, 2006, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against her, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see [658]*658Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of real property, that she repudiated the contract in a manner constituting an anticipatory breach (see Fridman v Kucher, 34 AD3d 726 [2006]), and that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to perform their obligations under the contract (see McCabe v Witteveen, 34 AD3d 652 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated February 17, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon a decision of the same court dated January 26, 2006, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against her, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see [658]*658Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of real property, that she repudiated the contract in a manner constituting an anticipatory breach (see Fridman v Kucher, 34 AD3d 726 [2006]), and that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to perform their obligations under the contract (see McCabe v Witteveen, 34 AD3d 652 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 657, 830 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-held-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack