O'Connell v. Clear Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connell v. Clear Holding Co.

126 A.D.2d 530, 510 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41665

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 530 (O'Connell v. Clear Holding Co.) 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

O'Connell v. Clear Holding Co., 126 A.D.2d 530, 510 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract to. sell a cooperative apartment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), entered April 16, 1986, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

There are no questions of fact to be determined at a trial. Time was not made of the essence by the designation that [531]*531closing would take place "on or before” a stated date. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inability to close until a few days after that date should have been given favorable consideration by the defendant and the adjournment requested should have been granted by it instead of the defendant declaring a default by the plaintiff and refusing to proceed to closing (see, Tarlo v Robinson, 118 AD2d 561). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, 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 to. sell a cooperative apartment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), entered April 16, 1986, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

There are no questions of fact to be determined at a trial. Time was not made of the essence by the designation that [531]*531closing would take place "on or before” a stated date. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inability to close until a few days after that date should have been given favorable consideration by the defendant and the adjournment requested should have been granted by it instead of the defendant declaring a default by the plaintiff and refusing to proceed to closing (see, Tarlo v Robinson, 118 AD2d 561). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 530, 510 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnell-v-clear-holding-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack