Sainato v. Hormozdi
This text of 87 A.D.2d 625 (Sainato v. Hormozdi) 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.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to direct that an amount of money being held in escrow be turned over to plaintiffs as partial liquidated damages, based upon defendants’ breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Paola, J.), dated December 22, 1980, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract for the sale of real property to defendants, in which a 30-day period was provided for defendants to “secure” a mortgage commitment to finance their purchase. If unable to secure such a commitment, the defendants could cancel the contract. Three days after the 30 days had expired, defendants sent a letter notifying plaintiffs of their cancellation. The next day, defendants received a mortgage commitment, which the bank had mailed two days after the expiration of the conditional period, but which was dated prior to its expiration. Under these circumstances, defendants cannot be held to have secured the mortgage within the specified time period and, therefore, they were within their rights in canceling the contract. (See Zigman v McMackin, 6 AD2d 907.) The other issues raised lack merit. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 A.D.2d 625, 448 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sainato-v-hormozdi-nyappdiv-1982.