You are here: / / Questions of Fact Remained About Whether the Seller Was “Ready, Willing...
,

Questions of Fact Remained About Whether the Seller Was “Ready, Willing and Able to Close” and Whether the Seller Had Breached the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Supreme Court Should Not Have Granted Summary Judgment to Seller

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that summary judgment, entitling the seller of shares of a cooperative allocated to a penthouse to keep the plaintiff-buyer’s $2.75 million deposit, should not have been granted. During the course of purchase negotiations a dispute arose about whether a terrace was exclusively for the use of the occupants of the penthouse or whether it was a common area which could be used by other residents. Supreme Court held the issue had been resolved in the plaintiff-buyer’s favor. But the First Department held that the proof did not demonstrate the issue had been fully resolved such that the plaintiff could be sure of an exclusive right to the use of the terrace. Because the proof did not demonstrate the issue had been fully resolved, there were questions of fact whether the seller was “ready, willing and able to close” on the time-of-the-essence closing date and whether the plaintiff had a good reason not to attend the closing.  The First Department also found there were questions of fact about whether the seller had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by trying the force the closing irrespective of whether the cooperative might later take steps to interfere with the plaintiff’s exclusive use of the terrace:

Without the [cooperative’s] Board’s affirmative and unequivocal acknowledgment that the shareholders have no right to traverse the terrace, and that it would not take future action to revoke plaintiff’s exclusive right to use that space, plaintiff lacked adequate assurances that his right of exclusivity (and the market value of the apartment) would remain undisturbed if he consummated the sale … .

The [seller] has not shown that plaintiff was given these assurances and, consequently, it failed to demonstrate its ability to close … . Moreover, absent a showing that plaintiff received unequivocal assurances that the Coop would not interfere with his right of exclusivity going forward, the [seller] cannot show that plaintiff lacked a lawful excuse to abstain from attending the closing … . Pastor v DeGaetano, 2015 NY Slip Op 03307, 1st Dept 4-21-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
MEDICAL (SURGICAL) RECORDS IN A NO-FAULT FILE RELATED TO A PRIOR INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Infant’s Injury Not Apparent for Several Months—Application to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Granted
“Sole Proximate Cause” Defense Not Demonstrated
THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST 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

Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court... Declaratory Judgment Action Is the Appropriate Vehicle for Challenging a County...