You are here: / / Zoning Change Prohibiting Subdivision Was Foreseeable, Developer Not Entitled...

Zoning Change Prohibiting Subdivision Was Foreseeable, Developer Not Entitled to Rescind Contract for Land Purchase

The Second Department determined plaintiff-developer’s (RW’s) complaint seeking rescission of a contract for the purchase of land was properly denied and the cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. RW argued that the zoning changes enacted by the town, which prohibited the subdivision plan contemplated by the contract, was not foreseeable. The court found that defendants had demonstrated the zoning change was, in fact, foreseeable and rescission was therefore not an available remedy:

” [T]he law of impossibility provides that performance of a contract will be excused if such performance is rendered impossible by intervening governmental activities, but only if those activities are unforeseeable'” … . Contrary to RW’s contention, a party seeking to rescind a contract must show that the intervening act was unforeseeable, even if the intervening act consisted of the actions of a governmental entity or the passage of new legislation … .

Here, RW did not show that it was unforeseeable that a change in the Town’s Zoning Code would render it impossible to subdivide the property as initially planned, and did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to [defendants’]  showing that such a change was foreseeable … . RW Holdings, LLC v Mayer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07020, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

You might also like
INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1).
REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations
PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND.
RECORDINGS OF 911 CALLS RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CAR ACCIDENT DISCOVERABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.
Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of a Parking Lot Entitled to Summary Judgment
DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS DID NOT FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (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

Question of Fact Whether Withdrawal Was Authorized, Despite Absence of Sign... Appropriate Statutes of Limitations and Accrual Dates Explained for “Breach...