Rosenthal v. Oakes

41 A.D.3d 305, 837 N.Y.S.2d 564
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 26, 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J), entered January 3, 2007, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and directed that the escrow agent return to them their down payment for the purchase of the subject cooperative apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the cooperative board’s refusal to consent to plaintiffs’ purchase of the subject apartment, plaintiffs were, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, entitled to cancel the contract for the sale of the apartment and to the return of their escrowed down payment. The record does not indicate the reason for the board’s refusal to give its consent, and defendant sellers have failed to come forward with any evi[306]*306dence that the refusal was attributable to bad faith conduct on plaintiffs’ part (see Corazza v Jacobs, 277 AD2d 52 [2000]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Rosenthal v. Oakes, 41 A.D.3d 305, 837 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

41 A.D.3d 305 (Rosenthal v. Oakes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ew At Dobbs, LLC
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
Cetindogan v. Schuyler
95 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)