Sabetfard v. Djavaheri Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sabetfard v. Djavaheri Realty Corp.

40 A.D.3d 838, 835 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedMay 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 838 (Sabetfard v. Djavaheri Realty Corp.) 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

Sabetfard v. Djavaheri Realty Corp., 40 A.D.3d 838, 835 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for [839]*839specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated April 10, 2006, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiffs specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bed-ford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). We decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. The trial evidence established that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the contract (see Goldstein v Held, 37 AD3d 657 [2007]; Roland v Benson, 30 AD3d 398 [2006]), and that he did not repudiate the contract (cf. G.G.F. Props. v Yu Mi Hong, 284 AD2d 427 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for [839]*839specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated April 10, 2006, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiffs specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bed-ford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). We decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination. The trial evidence established that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the contract (see Goldstein v Held, 37 AD3d 657 [2007]; Roland v Benson, 30 AD3d 398 [2006]), and that he did not repudiate the contract (cf. G.G.F. Props. v Yu Mi Hong, 284 AD2d 427 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 838, 835 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabetfard-v-djavaheri-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack