Spiegelman v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spiegelman v. Gordon

212 A.D.2d 775, 624 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2219

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 775 (Spiegelman v. Gordon) 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

Spiegelman v. Gordon, 212 A.D.2d 775, 624 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the down payment on two real estate contracts, the defendant S. Martin Gordon appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 13, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross application for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subject contracts of sale included mortgage contingency clauses. Although the purchasers secured loan commitments, the conditions of the purchasers’ loan commitments were "not fulfilled through no fault of the purchasers” (Lunning v 10 Bleecker St. Owners Corp., 160 AD2d 178; see, Cone v Daus, 120 AD2d 788, 789-790), but, rather, as a result of the seller’s lack of cooperation. Accordingly, the purchasers were properly granted summary judgment. The appellant’s remaining contention does not warrant reversal. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the down payment on two real estate contracts, the defendant S. Martin Gordon appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 13, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross application for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subject contracts of sale included mortgage contingency clauses. Although the purchasers secured loan commitments, the conditions of the purchasers’ loan commitments were "not fulfilled through no fault of the purchasers” (Lunning v 10 Bleecker St. Owners Corp., 160 AD2d 178; see, Cone v Daus, 120 AD2d 788, 789-790), but, rather, as a result of the seller’s lack of cooperation. Accordingly, the purchasers were properly granted summary judgment. The appellant’s remaining contention does not warrant reversal. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 775, 624 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spiegelman-v-gordon-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack