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.
172 AUDUBON CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1018 MORRIS PARK AVENUE REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Kenneth H. Koons, Defendant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered June 14, 2004, which, upon the prior grant of defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 14, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.
As we have already had occasion to observe in this matter, “the unambiguous terms of the parties' contract, as amended by the agreement of August 16, 2002, rescinded the fifth paragraph of the Additional Rider and provided that the buyer would ‘tak[e] subject to the existing C/O’ and that ‘no representation as to the legality of the structure’ had been made by the sellers. The amendment further provided that the remaining terms of the contract of sale, which included a paragraph that no provision of the contract could be ‘waived, changed or cancelled except in writing,’ remained unchanged” (3 A.D.3d 451, 452-453, 772 N.Y.S.2d 650 [2004] ). Therefore, there was no contractual basis for plaintiff's insistence at the adjourned closing, on September 6, 2002, for assurances that the C/Os legalized the 10 existing residential tenancies and, indeed, plaintiff breached the contract by refusing to close in the absence of such assurances. The sellers were under no duty to offer continued performance once plaintiff had breached the contract, particularly since there had been no further adjournment of the closing date, which pursuant to the contract had been scheduled for June 26, 2002.
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: September 29, 2005
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)