Meisels v. 1295 Union Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meisels v. 1295 Union Equities Corp.

306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6980

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Or[145] der and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered November 15, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment upon his first cause of action for, inter alia, specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real property, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim to recover for damage to the property and dismissed said counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff purchaser upon his first cause of action seeking specific performance of the parties’ contract for the sale of certain real estate. Although appellant sellers maintain that they were entitled to cancel the subject contract pursuant to a contractual provision permitting cancellation in the event that they were unable to convey title free of objectionable liens and encumbrances, the record establishes that they were simply unwilling to bear the cost of conveying title in accordance with requirements of the contract. Volitional unwillingness, as distinguished from good faith inability, to meet contractual obligations furnishes neither a ground for cancellation of the contract nor a defense against its specific performance (see Naso v Haque, 289 AD2d 309 [2001]; Barnett v Star Mech. Corp., 171 AD2d 142 [1991]).

We have reviewed appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Or[145] der and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered November 15, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment upon his first cause of action for, inter alia, specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real property, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim to recover for damage to the property and dismissed said counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff purchaser upon his first cause of action seeking specific performance of the parties’ contract for the sale of certain real estate. Although appellant sellers maintain that they were entitled to cancel the subject contract pursuant to a contractual provision permitting cancellation in the event that they were unable to convey title free of objectionable liens and encumbrances, the record establishes that they were simply unwilling to bear the cost of conveying title in accordance with requirements of the contract. Volitional unwillingness, as distinguished from good faith inability, to meet contractual obligations furnishes neither a ground for cancellation of the contract nor a defense against its specific performance (see Naso v Haque, 289 AD2d 309 [2001]; Barnett v Star Mech. Corp., 171 AD2d 142 [1991]).

We have reviewed appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Meisels v. 1295 Union Equities Corp., 306 A.D.2d 144, 761 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

306 A.D.2d 144 (Meisels v. 1295 Union Equities Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related