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.
Philip FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EENIMON CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents, 190 Riverside Drive, LLC, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 9, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Eenimon Corp. and WSC Riverside Owners LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant 190 Riverside Drive, LLC, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that defendants were not in default of the Offering Plan as amended, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 8, 2007, which denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment as moot, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff tenant did not timely exercise the exclusive right to purchase his apartment under the August 1999 offering plan, and that plaintiff's “acceptance” to purchase submitted in June 2004 was materially defective in that it failed to comport with the offering plan's acceptance requirements of an executed purchase agreement accompanied by a 10% down payment. Furthermore, under the clear terms of the offering plan, a submitted acceptance was to be deemed rejected if it was not expressly accepted within 30 days. Plaintiff's argument that defendants waived their rights under the offering plan is not supported by any evidence that would indicate an intentional waiver of a known right (see generally Jefpaul Garage Corp. v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 61 N.Y.2d 442, 446, 474 N.Y.S.2d 458, 462 N.E.2d 1176 [1984] ).
We modify solely to declare in defendants' favor (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 229 N.Y.S.2d 380, 183 N.E.2d 670 [1962], cert. denied 371 U.S. 901, 83 S.Ct. 205, 9 L.Ed.2d 164 [1962] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, including that there was a breach of good faith and fair dealing, and find them unavailing.
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: November 20, 2008
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)