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.
Richard HERBST, respondent, v. 1514 EASTERN PARKWAY, LTD., appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant 1514 Eastern Parkway, Ltd., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 16, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it directing, inter alia, specific performance of the subject contract for the sale of real property.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Where a case is tried without a jury, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809; Musick v. 330 Wythe Ave. Assoc. LLC, 41 A.D.3d 675, 675, 838 N.Y.S.2d 620). Here, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that the appellant, on the basis of a mortgage contingency clause that ran solely to the benefit of the purchaser, repudiated the subject contract in a manner constituting an anticipatory breach (see Goldstein v. Held, 37 A.D.3d 657, 658, 830 N.Y.S.2d 348; Coneys v. Game, 141 A.D.2d 795, 530 N.Y.S.2d 23), and that the plaintiff, as assignee of the defendant Aaron Fromowitz, was ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the subject contract (see Goldstein v. Held, 37 A.D.3d at 658, 830 N.Y.S.2d 348).
The appellant's 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: December 18, 2007
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)