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.
Meritt Diamond, et al., appellants, v. William Scudder, etc., respondent.
Argued-December 14, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosen, Ct.Atty.Ref.), entered October 17, 2008, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against them, declaring that the option contract is invalid and dismissing the cause of action for specific performance.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind 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; Stevens v. State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625). We decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance, as the trial evidence failed to establish the existence of an option contract, or that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to purchase the property pursuant to the terms of the option contract, if it existed (see Huntington Min. Holdings v. Cottontail Plaza, 60 N.Y.2d 997, 998; Djukanovic v. D'Amico, 40 AD3d 576; Stojowski v. D'Sa, 28 AD3d 645; Johnson v. Phelan, 281 A.D.2d 394, 395; 3M Holding Corp. v. Wagner, 166 A.D.2d 580, 581-582).
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BALKIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-10551 (Index No. 26742 /04)
Decided: February 02, 2010
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)