You are here: / / Lawyer’s Communication Did Not Make “Time of the Essence.”

Lawyer’s Communication Did Not Make “Time of the Essence.”

The Second Department held that the letter from the buyer’s attorney to the seller’s attorney stating that the buyer was prepared to close “on any date … within the next ten days,” and that the buyer would make himself available “at any time and location so designated by you,” and requested that the seller’s attorney “contact me within the next ten days to schedule a closing” did not make “time of the essence” because “it did not clearly and distinctly set a new date and time for closing, and it did not inform the defendant that he would be considered in default if he did not perform by a given date…”. Latora v Ferreira, 2011-09673, Index No. 20462/05 Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

You might also like
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
“Undue Influence” and “Fraud” Criteria Explained Re: Objections to Probate of a Will
PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed
AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED ABOUT $275,000; THE JUDGE ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48; PLANTIFF DID NOT DO SO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF YEARS; THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION ON THE INQUEST WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S CONTINGENCY FEE IN THIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MATTER WAS UNENFORCEABLE, THE ATTORNEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY.
A CONTRACT BETWEEN A LANDOWNER AND A TOWN THAT PURPORTS TO BIND TOWN BOARDS ELECTED IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO A PETITION FOR REZONING VIOLATES THE TERM LIMITS RULE; A CONTRACT WHICH PURPORTS TO LIMIT A TOWN’S REZONING REVIEW PROCESS VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).
CO-OP DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE DISABLED COMPLAINANT BY REFUSING TO ALLOW HER TO KEEP A DOG IN HER APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Case—Slip... Answering Juror’s Question Outside Presence of Defendant, Counsel and Other...