Harlem Real Estate LLC v. New York City Economic Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harlem Real Estate LLC v. New York City Economic Development Corp.

82 A.D.3d 562, 918 N.Y.2d 717

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 562 (Harlem Real Estate LLC v. New York City Economic Development Corp.) 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

Harlem Real Estate LLC v. New York City Economic Development Corp., 82 A.D.3d 562, 918 N.Y.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[563]*563In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs failed to show that “facts essential to justify opposition may [have] exist[ed] but [could not] then be stated” so as to warrant the additional disclosure they sought (CPLR 3212 [f]). In light of the existing record, it is clear that further discovery would reveal no evidence that would raise an issue of fact as to the validity of the conditions subsequent in the Harlem property contract and deed.

Further, the record presents no issue of fact whether plaintiffs’ subsequent lease in the Bronx obviated their obligations with respect to the Harlem property. Indeed, the parties entered into a modification of the original deed to the Harlem property that reaffirmed the original conditions subsequent.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

[563]*563In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs failed to show that “facts essential to justify opposition may [have] exist[ed] but [could not] then be stated” so as to warrant the additional disclosure they sought (CPLR 3212 [f]). In light of the existing record, it is clear that further discovery would reveal no evidence that would raise an issue of fact as to the validity of the conditions subsequent in the Harlem property contract and deed.

Further, the record presents no issue of fact whether plaintiffs’ subsequent lease in the Bronx obviated their obligations with respect to the Harlem property. Indeed, the parties entered into a modification of the original deed to the Harlem property that reaffirmed the original conditions subsequent.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 562, 918 N.Y.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlem-real-estate-llc-v-new-york-city-economic-development-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack