Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp.

47 A.D.3d 688, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 688 (Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty 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

Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp., 47 A.D.3d 688, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 30, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court entered March 21, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff corporate vendee, Main Street Xata, Ltd., failed to meet its burden of showing that it had the financial capacity to purchase the subject property (see Dairo v Rockaway Blvd. Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 602 [2007]; Backer v Bouza Falco Co., 28 [689]*689AD3d 503 [2006]; Cheemanlall v Toolsee, 17 AD3d 392, 393 [2005]). That the principal of the plaintiff corporate vendee may have had the ability to close did not establish that the plaintiff had such ability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in directing specific performance of the contract. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 30, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court entered March 21, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff corporate vendee, Main Street Xata, Ltd., failed to meet its burden of showing that it had the financial capacity to purchase the subject property (see Dairo v Rockaway Blvd. Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 602 [2007]; Backer v Bouza Falco Co., 28 [689]*689AD3d 503 [2006]; Cheemanlall v Toolsee, 17 AD3d 392, 393 [2005]). That the principal of the plaintiff corporate vendee may have had the ability to close did not establish that the plaintiff had such ability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in directing specific performance of the contract. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 688, 848 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/main-street-xata-ltd-v-valine-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack