Haiduk v. Nassar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haiduk v. Nassar

177 A.D.2d 545, 576 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16819

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 545 (Haiduk v. Nassar) 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

Haiduk v. Nassar, 177 A.D.2d 545, 576 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silberman, J.H.O.), dated December 5, 1988, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed them to specifically perform the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not err in ordering specific performance of the parties’ contract for the sale of real property. The testimony of the purchaser’s attorney and the documentary evidence support the finding that the purchaser was at all times ready, willing and able to perform (see, Tucek v Hoffman, 161 AD2d 588), and that the failure to close was due to the sellers’ refusal. Any defense based upon the purchaser’s alleged failure to appear at an October 30, 1984, closing was waived by the parties’ subsequent negotiations (see, Levine v Sarbello, 112 AD2d 197, 200-201, affd 67 NY2d 780). Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silberman, J.H.O.), dated December 5, 1988, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed them to specifically perform the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court did not err in ordering specific performance of the parties’ contract for the sale of real property. The testimony of the purchaser’s attorney and the documentary evidence support the finding that the purchaser was at all times ready, willing and able to perform (see, Tucek v Hoffman, 161 AD2d 588), and that the failure to close was due to the sellers’ refusal. Any defense based upon the purchaser’s alleged failure to appear at an October 30, 1984, closing was waived by the parties’ subsequent negotiations (see, Levine v Sarbello, 112 AD2d 197, 200-201, affd 67 NY2d 780). Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 545, 576 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haiduk-v-nassar-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack