Perchikoff v. Sabia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perchikoff v. Sabia

138 A.D.2d 472, 526 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 472 (Perchikoff v. Sabia) 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

Perchikoff v. Sabia, 138 A.D.2d 472, 526 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mc-Ginity, J.), entered February 20, 1986, which is in favor of the defendants and against them, upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This case involves a contract to sell a one-family house. The mortgage commitment clause provided that "this contract is conditioned upon purchaser [plaintiffs] obtaining a firm mortgage commitment * * * within 30 days”. Since the plaintiffs failed to obtain the requisite firm mortgage commitment within the allotted time, the defendants properly canceled the contract. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Spatt, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mc-Ginity, J.), entered February 20, 1986, which is in favor of the defendants and against them, upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This case involves a contract to sell a one-family house. The mortgage commitment clause provided that "this contract is conditioned upon purchaser [plaintiffs] obtaining a firm mortgage commitment * * * within 30 days”. Since the plaintiffs failed to obtain the requisite firm mortgage commitment within the allotted time, the defendants properly canceled the contract. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 472, 526 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perchikoff-v-sabia-nyappdiv-1988.