Post v. Mengoni

198 A.D.2d 487, 604 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 487 (Post v. Mengoni) 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
Post v. Mengoni, 198 A.D.2d 487, 604 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover a down payment made pursuant to a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), entered June 4, 1991, as, inter alia, granted the defendant Mengoni’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him and directed the escrow holder to disburse to the defendant Mengoni the down payment of $50,000 as "liquidated damages”; and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order and judgment as dismissed his counterclaim for specific performance.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff does not dispute that the mortgage for which he applied was in an amount that was $100,000 greater than that required under the express terms of the mortgage contingency clause of the contract which provided for a commitment "of 2,000,000”. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff breached the contract as a matter of law and that he is not entitled to recover the down payment (see, Silva v Celella, 153 AD2d 847; cf., Slamow v Del Col, 174 AD2d 725, affd, 79 NY2d 1016).

We further conclude that the defendant Mengoni’s remedy at law, which is an award of money damages, was adequate to compensate him under these circumstances and accordingly the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing his counterclaim seeking specific performance of the contract of sale (see, Piro v Bowen, 76 AD2d 392).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of the defendant Mengoni and conclude that they are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Fiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mason v. Pembroke NY LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30018 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
New York Ctr. for Esthetic & Laser Dentistry v. VSLP United LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kweku v. Thomas
2016 NY Slip Op 8051 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
HSM Real Estate, Inc. v. Dragon
94 A.D.3d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Humbert v. Allen
89 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gorgoglione v. Gillenson
47 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Markovitz v. Kachian
28 A.D.3d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Miranda v. Jay Construction Corp.
2 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Companion v. Touchstone
674 N.E.2d 329 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Marx v. Shustek
226 A.D.2d 351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Katz v. Simon
216 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 487, 604 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-mengoni-nyappdiv-1993.