Karamatzanis v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karamatzanis v. Cohen

181 A.D.2d 618

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 618 (Karamatzanis v. Cohen) 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

Karamatzanis v. Cohen, 181 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William H. Keniry, J.), entered May 15, 1991, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded plaintiffs specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on which to close and warns that failure to close on that date will result in default” (Sohayegh v Oberlander, 155 AD2d 436, 438). Here, the notice sent by defendant’s counsel to plaintiffs’ counsel stating that defendant "will not consent to adjourn closing beyond 10/3/85 for any reason” was insufficient to render time of the essence, since there was no clear and unequivocal warning that failure to close on that date would be considered a default. Under these circumstances, defendant had no basis to refuse to close, and plaintiffs were properly awarded specific performance of the contract. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William H. Keniry, J.), entered May 15, 1991, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded plaintiffs specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

"A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on which to close and warns that failure to close on that date will result in default” (Sohayegh v Oberlander, 155 AD2d 436, 438). Here, the notice sent by defendant’s counsel to plaintiffs’ counsel stating that defendant "will not consent to adjourn closing beyond 10/3/85 for any reason” was insufficient to render time of the essence, since there was no clear and unequivocal warning that failure to close on that date would be considered a default. Under these circumstances, defendant had no basis to refuse to close, and plaintiffs were properly awarded specific performance of the contract. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karamatzanis-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack