Tri State Construction, LLC v. Vaij Realty Associates

45 A.D.3d 328, 844 N.Y.S.2d 700
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 8, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered August 17, 2006, which, in an action for specific performance, granted defendant seller’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The amendment to the contract that plaintiff buyer argues was intended to extinguish the time of the essence clause [329]*329invoked by defendant does not expressly revoke such clause, and was properly construed by the motion court in a manner that was consistent with such clause (see V.C. Vitanza Sons v New York City Hous. Auth., 7 AD3d 398 [2004]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Tri State Construction, LLC v. Vaij Realty Associates, 45 A.D.3d 328, 844 N.Y.S.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

45 A.D.3d 328 (Tri State Construction, LLC v. Vaij Realty Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nathanson v. Tri-State Constr. LLC
48 A.D.3d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)