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.
J. Gerald COMBS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Marc LEWIS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered August 12, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff purchasers the return of their down payment in the sum of $67,500, together with interest at the statutory rate from January 28, 1986, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The mortgage contingency clause provided that plaintiffs could cancel within 5 days if a commitment was not obtained by the date specified therein or “on Notice to Seller” if the other stated conditions respecting the mortgage to be obtained by the buyers were not met. By its plain language, the latter portion of the contingency clause did not contain a specific deadline for notice. Where no specific deadline is provided in a mortgage contingency clause, a reasonable time for cancellation thereunder is implied (see Tendler v. Lazar, 141 A.D.2d 717, 529 N.Y.S.2d 583). Plaintiffs' notice of termination, based on the admittedly non-conforming mortgage commitment obtained, served before any closing was set, was reasonable.
Defendants' argument that plaintiffs could not rely upon the mortgage contingency clause because they did not apply for their mortgage in writing, but did so orally, is without merit. The contract of sale did not require a written mortgage application.
In view of defendants' breach in failing to return the down payment, which was released by defendants' attorney to them, imposition of interest at the statutory rate was proper under CPLR 5001(a).
We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them unavailing.
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: November 20, 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)