Muttontown Realty Corp. v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muttontown Realty Corp. v. Schwartz

197 A.D.2d 680, 604 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 680 (Muttontown Realty Corp. v. Schwartz) 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

Muttontown Realty Corp. v. Schwartz, 197 A.D.2d 680, 604 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated August 20, 1991 which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record raises triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212) as to whether the plaintiff waived timely performance on the part of the defendants (see, Ranfro Dev. Corp. v Home Funding Co., 26 AD2d 955). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we also find that the defendants’ actions on the day finally set for closing did not constitute an anticipatory breach of the parties’ contract (see, Calamari & Perillo, Contracts § 12-3, at 521 [3d ed]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Fiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated August 20, 1991 which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record raises triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212) as to whether the plaintiff waived timely performance on the part of the defendants (see, Ranfro Dev. Corp. v Home Funding Co., 26 AD2d 955). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we also find that the defendants’ actions on the day finally set for closing did not constitute an anticipatory breach of the parties’ contract (see, Calamari & Perillo, Contracts § 12-3, at 521 [3d ed]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Fiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 680, 604 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muttontown-realty-corp-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack