Tauck, Inc. v. Placid Sea, S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tauck, Inc. v. Placid Sea, S.A.

306 A.D.2d 140, 760 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6997

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

DecidedJune 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 140 (Tauck, Inc. v. Placid Sea, S.A.) 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

Tauck, Inc. v. Placid Sea, S.A., 306 A.D.2d 140, 760 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 17, 2003, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s acceptance of plaintiff’s offer to modify the repayment terms of their loan agreement was unambiguously conditioned on defendant’s receipt of financing from a nonparty in accordance with a specified commitment letter. Since the specified financing was never received, the condition failed, [141]*141and thus there was no modification (see Sichol v Crocker, 177 AD2d 842 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 755 [1992]). Accordingly, the motion court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment pursuant to the terms of the original loan agreement. We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, 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 January 17, 2003, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s acceptance of plaintiff’s offer to modify the repayment terms of their loan agreement was unambiguously conditioned on defendant’s receipt of financing from a nonparty in accordance with a specified commitment letter. Since the specified financing was never received, the condition failed, [141]*141and thus there was no modification (see Sichol v Crocker, 177 AD2d 842 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 755 [1992]). Accordingly, the motion court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment pursuant to the terms of the original loan agreement. We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 140, 760 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tauck-inc-v-placid-sea-sa-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack