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.
Eustorgio FELIPE, et al., appellants, v. 2820 WEST 36TH STREET REALTY CORP., respondent.
In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated December 15, 2004, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the Kings County Clerk to vacate the notice of pendency filed against the subject premises.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs conceded that at the time they executed the contract of sale, the contract was not yet executed by the defendant. Moreover, it is undisputed that the defendant did not subsequently mail a fully-executed copy of the contract to the plaintiffs' attorney, as expressly required under paragraph 17 of the rider to the contract. Because the delivery requirement was a condition precedent to the formation of any binding agreement, it could not be waived by the defendant (see Brois v. DeLuca, 154 A.D.2d 417, 546 N.Y.S.2d 3; see also Manhattan Theatre Club v. Bohemian Benevolent & Literary Assn. of City of N.Y., 64 N.Y.2d 1069, 1070-1071, 489 N.Y.S.2d 877, 479 N.E.2d 222; Schwartz v. Greenberg, 304 N.Y. 250, 107 N.E.2d 65). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to direct the Kings County Clerk to vacate the notice of pendency (see Raanan v. Tom's Triangle, 303 A.D.2d 668, 669, 758 N.Y.S.2d 343).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
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: July 18, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)