Schonzeit v. Wiesen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schonzeit v. Wiesen

154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13410

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 291 (Schonzeit v. Wiesen) 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

Schonzeit v. Wiesen, 154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on July 18, 1988, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for the defendant on his counterclaim, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 or, in the alternative, for an order imposing sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, is unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Ramos, J.

Defendant submitted uncontradicted proof that he had complied with the terms of the contract of sale regarding application for the cooperative board’s approval.

Plaintiffs had no legitimate reason to declare defendant in default. There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that their demand for liquidated damages was anything but a repudiation of the contract of sale. The purpose of liquidated damages is to compensate a plaintiff for permitting a defendant to terminate his contractual obligations (Muzak Corp. v Trattner, 28 Misc 2d 504 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on July 18, 1988, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for the defendant on his counterclaim, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 or, in the alternative, for an order imposing sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, is unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Ramos, J.

Defendant submitted uncontradicted proof that he had complied with the terms of the contract of sale regarding application for the cooperative board’s approval.

Plaintiffs had no legitimate reason to declare defendant in default. There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that their demand for liquidated damages was anything but a repudiation of the contract of sale. The purpose of liquidated damages is to compensate a plaintiff for permitting a defendant to terminate his contractual obligations (Muzak Corp. v Trattner, 28 Misc 2d 504 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 291, 546 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schonzeit-v-wiesen-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack