Roman v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. Watson

297 A.D.2d 319, 746 N.Y.2d 268, 746 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7912

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 319 (Roman v. Watson) 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

Roman v. Watson, 297 A.D.2d 319, 746 N.Y.2d 268, 746 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

It is well settled that in order for a seller of real property to be found in default for failure to provide insurable or marketable title, the purchaser “must first tender performance * * * and demand good title” (Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 44 NY2d 702, 703; see Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242; Connolly v Hampton Landscopes, 210 AD2d 285). Since the plaintiff failed to attend the scheduled closing, did not tender performance, did not demand good title from the defendants, and did not inform the defendants of the specific defects in the title prior to the closing, he was in default, not the defendants (see Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, supra; Connolly v Hampton Landscopes, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment (see Washington Ave. Assoc. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486; Lake Hills Swim Club v Samson Dev. Corp., 213 AD2d 701). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

It is well settled that in order for a seller of real property to be found in default for failure to provide insurable or marketable title, the purchaser “must first tender performance * * * and demand good title” (Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 44 NY2d 702, 703; see Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242; Connolly v Hampton Landscopes, 210 AD2d 285). Since the plaintiff failed to attend the scheduled closing, did not tender performance, did not demand good title from the defendants, and did not inform the defendants of the specific defects in the title prior to the closing, he was in default, not the defendants (see Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, supra; Connolly v Hampton Landscopes, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment (see Washington Ave. Assoc. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486; Lake Hills Swim Club v Samson Dev. Corp., 213 AD2d 701). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 319, 746 N.Y.2d 268, 746 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-watson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack