Wu Realty Corp. v. 123 Lafayette Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wu Realty Corp. v. 123 Lafayette Corp.

281 A.D.2d 189, 721 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2255

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 189 (Wu Realty Corp. v. 123 Lafayette Corp.) 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

Wu Realty Corp. v. 123 Lafayette Corp., 281 A.D.2d 189, 721 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2000 and on January 7, 2000, respectively, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment, severed defendants’ counterclaims for further proceedings, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that the relevant paragraph of the agreement for the purchase [190]*190and sale of certain real property unambiguously entitled defendant seller to terminate the agreement without cause upon return of plaintiff purchaser’s deposit, which right the seller exercised prior to closing, and that the handwritten insertion to the relevant paragraph set forth an exception to the seller’s obligation to return the deposit, rather than a condition to the seller’s right to terminate. This determination is dispositive of all claims in the purchaser’s complaint. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2000 and on January 7, 2000, respectively, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment, severed defendants’ counterclaims for further proceedings, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that the relevant paragraph of the agreement for the purchase [190]*190and sale of certain real property unambiguously entitled defendant seller to terminate the agreement without cause upon return of plaintiff purchaser’s deposit, which right the seller exercised prior to closing, and that the handwritten insertion to the relevant paragraph set forth an exception to the seller’s obligation to return the deposit, rather than a condition to the seller’s right to terminate. This determination is dispositive of all claims in the purchaser’s complaint. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 189, 721 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wu-realty-corp-v-123-lafayette-corp-nyappdiv-2001.