Wilson v. City of Long Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. City of Long Beach

267 A.D.2d 456, 700 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13288

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 456 (Wilson v. City of Long Beach) 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

Wilson v. City of Long Beach, 267 A.D.2d 456, 700 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for specific performance of contracts to convey real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme [457]*457Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On a prior appeal in the instant case, this Court concluded, inter alia, “that the contracts for the sale of real property entered into between the plaintiffs as purchasers and the defendants as sellers, gave the defendants the right to terminate the contracts if the plaintiffs did not act in good faith and with due diligence in obtaining the necessary permits and financing for the project”, and that an issue of fact existed as to “whether the plaintiffs acted properly under the agreements” (Wilson v City of Long Beach, 133 AD2d 684). The parties agreed to have the issue decided on the papers submitted rather than through an evidentiary hearing. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, they failed to establish that they acted with good faith and due diligence in obtaining the necessary permits and financing for the project as required by the contracts. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for specific performance of contracts to convey real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme [457]*457Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On a prior appeal in the instant case, this Court concluded, inter alia, “that the contracts for the sale of real property entered into between the plaintiffs as purchasers and the defendants as sellers, gave the defendants the right to terminate the contracts if the plaintiffs did not act in good faith and with due diligence in obtaining the necessary permits and financing for the project”, and that an issue of fact existed as to “whether the plaintiffs acted properly under the agreements” (Wilson v City of Long Beach, 133 AD2d 684). The parties agreed to have the issue decided on the papers submitted rather than through an evidentiary hearing. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, they failed to establish that they acted with good faith and due diligence in obtaining the necessary permits and financing for the project as required by the contracts. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 456, 700 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-long-beach-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack