Wing Shun Tsang v. Brady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wing Shun Tsang v. Brady

206 A.D.2d 423, 616 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 423 (Wing Shun Tsang v. Brady) 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

Wing Shun Tsang v. Brady, 206 A.D.2d 423, 616 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a down payment tendered pursuant to a contract for the sale of real estate, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered December 11, 1992, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $7,275.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212; Berholtz v Georgiou, 184 AD2d 677). The plaintiff demonstrated by competent evidence that he signed a contract conditioned upon his obtaining a mortgage and, through no willful default, his application was denied. The defendants’ unsubstantiated allegations that the plaintiff attempted to sabotage the granting of a mortgage commitment were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Ihmels v Kahn, 126 AD2d 701). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a down payment tendered pursuant to a contract for the sale of real estate, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered December 11, 1992, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $7,275.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212; Berholtz v Georgiou, 184 AD2d 677). The plaintiff demonstrated by competent evidence that he signed a contract conditioned upon his obtaining a mortgage and, through no willful default, his application was denied. The defendants’ unsubstantiated allegations that the plaintiff attempted to sabotage the granting of a mortgage commitment were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Ihmels v Kahn, 126 AD2d 701). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 423, 616 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-shun-tsang-v-brady-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack