Kahen v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahen v. Blum

185 A.D.2d 875

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 875 (Kahen v. Blum) 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

Kahen v. Blum, 185 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered April 18, 1990, as, after a nonjury trial, directed him to sell the property to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that "[o]n a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545). Applying these standards to the instant case, we hold that the trial evidence supports the conclusion that the plaintiffs remained ready, willing, and able to perform under the contract and that the defendant refused to close, even after an impediment to the passing of title had been removed (see, Glauber v P.S.F.B. Assocs., 89 AD2d 576).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, S.E.S. Importers v Pappalardo, 53 NY2d 455). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered April 18, 1990, as, after a nonjury trial, directed him to sell the property to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that "[o]n a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545). Applying these standards to the instant case, we hold that the trial evidence supports the conclusion that the plaintiffs remained ready, willing, and able to perform under the contract and that the defendant refused to close, even after an impediment to the passing of title had been removed (see, Glauber v P.S.F.B. Assocs., 89 AD2d 576).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, S.E.S. Importers v Pappalardo, 53 NY2d 455). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahen-v-blum-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack