Zev v. Merman

New York Court of Appeals

Zev v. Merman

533 N.E.2d 669, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3372

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by112 cases

This text of 533 N.E.2d 669 (Zev v. Merman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zev v. Merman, 533 N.E.2d 669, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3372 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

[783]*783OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case (see, Ballen v Potter, 251 NY 224; Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 241 NY 455, 459). Included within a court’s determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number of days provided for performance (see, Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., supra, at 459; Ballen v Potter, supra; 76 N. Assocs. v Theil Mgt. Corp., 114 AD2d 948; Schoen v Grossman, 33 Misc 2d 490, affd 17 AD2d 778; Pomeroy, Specific Performance of Contracts § 396 [3d ed]). The determination of reasonableness must by its very nature be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in determining that the time set by defendants for performance was reasonable.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

[783]*783OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case (see, Ballen v Potter, 251 NY 224; Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 241 NY 455, 459). Included within a court’s determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number of days provided for performance (see, Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., supra, at 459; Ballen v Potter, supra; 76 N. Assocs. v Theil Mgt. Corp., 114 AD2d 948; Schoen v Grossman, 33 Misc 2d 490, affd 17 AD2d 778; Pomeroy, Specific Performance of Contracts § 396 [3d ed]). The determination of reasonableness must by its very nature be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in determining that the time set by defendants for performance was reasonable.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 N.E.2d 669, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zev-v-merman-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack