Holliday v. Zambuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holliday v. Zambuto

149 A.D.2d 961, 540 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 961 (Holliday v. Zambuto) 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

Holliday v. Zambuto, 149 A.D.2d 961, 540 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. [962]*962Memorandum: Plaintiff sues for specific performance of a real estate sales contract, and defendants counterclaim to recover the down payment on the contract in the sum of $10,000. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

Defendants contend that they justifiably withdrew from the contract because plaintiff is unable to convey the property free of encumbrances as required by the agreement. They refer specifically to an oil and gas lease, a right-of-way agreement (pipeline) and a telephone company easement. While a purchaser may refuse to "accept title subject to an encumbrance if the contract specifies conveyance of title free of all encumbrances” (Rhodes v Astro-Pac, Inc., 41 NY2d 919, 920), the language of the contract between the parties leaves unclear whether the oil and gas lease was a known and accepted encumbrance. That issue may not be resolved as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment. Nor can we resolve on this record whether the right-of-way agreement and the telephone company easement were incurable defects in title since it is questionable whether plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to cure the defects within a reasonable time (see, Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 44 NY2d 702; Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242, 246). These and other issues of fact require a trial. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. [962]*962Memorandum: Plaintiff sues for specific performance of a real estate sales contract, and defendants counterclaim to recover the down payment on the contract in the sum of $10,000. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

Defendants contend that they justifiably withdrew from the contract because plaintiff is unable to convey the property free of encumbrances as required by the agreement. They refer specifically to an oil and gas lease, a right-of-way agreement (pipeline) and a telephone company easement. While a purchaser may refuse to "accept title subject to an encumbrance if the contract specifies conveyance of title free of all encumbrances” (Rhodes v Astro-Pac, Inc., 41 NY2d 919, 920), the language of the contract between the parties leaves unclear whether the oil and gas lease was a known and accepted encumbrance. That issue may not be resolved as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment. Nor can we resolve on this record whether the right-of-way agreement and the telephone company easement were incurable defects in title since it is questionable whether plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to cure the defects within a reasonable time (see, Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 44 NY2d 702; Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242, 246). These and other issues of fact require a trial. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 961, 540 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-v-zambuto-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack