Spivak v. Farkas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spivak v. Farkas

217 A.D.2d 430, 629 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7627

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 430 (Spivak v. Farkas) 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

Spivak v. Farkas, 217 A.D.2d 430, 629 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 23, 1994, which in an action to recover the down payment in a contract for the sale of real property and related expenses, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff buyer was entitled to cancel the contract without a showing of tender or ability to pay, because defendants’ title was incurably defective, constituting only seven-eighths interest in the subject property, and thus defendants were in automatic breach (see, Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242, 246, 247). Defendants’ misrepresentation in the contract that they possessed full title was a misrepresentation that also justified plaintiff’s cancellation of the contract (see, Junius Constr. Corp. v Cohen, 257 NY2d 393, 400). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 23, 1994, which in an action to recover the down payment in a contract for the sale of real property and related expenses, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff buyer was entitled to cancel the contract without a showing of tender or ability to pay, because defendants’ title was incurably defective, constituting only seven-eighths interest in the subject property, and thus defendants were in automatic breach (see, Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242, 246, 247). Defendants’ misrepresentation in the contract that they possessed full title was a misrepresentation that also justified plaintiff’s cancellation of the contract (see, Junius Constr. Corp. v Cohen, 257 NY2d 393, 400). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 430, 629 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivak-v-farkas-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack