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.
HANDS-ON-MGT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.D.O. REALTY CORP., Defendant, Samana Management, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about January 13, 2003, which, in an action seeking specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a building, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 13, 2003, which granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendant C.D.O. Realty Corp., but held that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff purchaser breached the subject contract for the sale of real property by not forwarding an additional $20,000 payment at the expiration of the due diligence period, in accordance with the agreement's terms. Instead, plaintiff sought to change those terms by proposing the addition of a purchase money mortgage provision-the equivalent of making a counter-offer (see Lamanna v. Wing Yuen Realty, 283 A.D.2d 165, 166, 724 N.Y.S.2d 54, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 719, 733 N.Y.S.2d 371, 759 N.E.2d 370). Plaintiff's actions demonstrated that it was not ready, willing and able to perform its contractual obligations, and thus was not entitled to specific performance (see Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc. v. Cottontail Plaza, Inc., 60 N.Y.2d 997, 998, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 24, 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)