Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
28 PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AKLEH REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Biryani Corp., Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 24, 2003, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action for specific performance of a real estate contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant sellers failed to schedule a closing, alleging that plaintiff lacked sufficient funds to acquire the subject premises despite plaintiff's letter notification that it was ready, willing and able to proceed with the contract of sale. The IAS court found a factual question as to whether plaintiff gave timely notice of its decision to waive a mortgage contingency provision. However, there is no indication in the record that defendants ever notified plaintiff to conduct an inspection, thereby starting the 45-day period in which plaintiff was required to either obtain financing or waive the contingency provision, and neither party seems to have declared time to be of the essence (cf. Petrelli Assoc. v. Germano, 268 A.D.2d 513, 513-514, 702 N.Y.S.2d 360). Plaintiff was clearly entitled to waive the mortgage contingency clause inserted solely for its benefit (W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639; Xhelili v. Larstanna, 150 A.D.2d 560, 541 N.Y.S.2d 132). However, in the absence of a tender of the purchase price at closing, “there is no law day by which plaintiff's performance can be measured” (3M Holding Corp. v. Wagner, 166 A.D.2d 580, 581, 560 N.Y.S.2d 865). Thus, in the absence of plaintiff having formally tendered performance as of the time of the motion, the IAS court properly denied summary judgment on the ground that it is plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that it was ready, willing and able to perform pursuant to the contract of sale to obtain the relief of specific performance (Zev v. Merman, 134 A.D.2d 555, 521 N.Y.S.2d 455, affd. 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 533 N.E.2d 669; Huntington Min. Holdings v. Cottontail Plaza, 96 A.D.2d 526, 526-527, 465 N.Y.S.2d 40, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 997, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 21, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)