Suarez v. Ingalls

282 A.D.2d 599, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 599 (Suarez v. Ingalls) 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
Suarez v. Ingalls, 282 A.D.2d 599, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Dillon, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which denied her motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. She properly exercised her right to terminate the contract for the sale of real property on the ground that the plaintiff failed to obtain a mortgage commitment within the time provided by the contract (see, Finkelman v Wood, 203 AD2d 236). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the letter dated May 12, 1999, proposing an extension of the mortgage commitment date was of no legal significance.

There is no merit to the plaintiffs argument that the cancel[600]*600lation was ineffective because it was not sent by certified, mail. Strict compliance with the contract notice provisions was not required because the plaintiff does not claim that she did not receive actual notice, or was prejudiced by the deviation (see, Dellicarri v Hirschfeld, 210 AD2d 584). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

CJJ Cleaning Servs. Inc. v. East Harlem Tutorial Program, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 30892(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Handsome Acquisitions, Inc. v. Ialenti
2025 NY Slip Op 32658(U) (Suffolk County Court, 2025)
Cadaner v. Johnson
E.D. New York, 2025
Colonial Plaza Realty, LLC v. Mother & Babies Perinatal Network of S. Cent. N.Y., Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33422(U) (New York Supreme Court, Broome County, 2024)
Goldin Real Estate, LLC v. Shukla
2024 NY Slip Op 02304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp.
336 Conn. 194 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2020)
In re 1111 Myrtle Ave. Grp., LLC
598 B.R. 729 (S.D. New York, 2019)
11-01 36 Ave. LLC v. Quamar
New York Supreme Court, 2016
11-01 36 Avenue LLC v. Quamar
54 Misc. 3d 622 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Heischober v. Heischober
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Thor 725 8th Ave. LLC v. Goonetilleke
138 F. Supp. 3d 497 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC v. Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corp.
121 A.D.3d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc.
52 F. Supp. 3d 52 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Baygold Associates., Inc. v. Congregation Yetev Lev of Monsey, Inc.
81 A.D.3d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Iskalo Electric Tower LLC v. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
79 A.D.3d 1605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
DuVal Wiedmann, LLC v. InfoRocket. Com, Inc.
620 F.3d 496 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 599, 723 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suarez-v-ingalls-nyappdiv-2001.