You are here: / / DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY,...

DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant seller did not demonstrate the plaintiff buyer would not have been ready, willing and able to close on the property in this specific performance action. Pointing to the requirements of the plaintiff’s commitment letter was not enough to warrant summary judgment in defendant’s favor:

Even when a seller repudiates a contract, the buyer asserting a cause of action for specific performance or to recover damages for breach of contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform… . As the movant on a motion for summary judgment, however, it was the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the absence of any issues of fact and make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff would not and could not perform … . Here, the defendant did not meet its prima facie burden. The defendant relied solely upon the nonconforming commitment letter, which does not conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff would not have been able to satisfy the conditions prior to or at the closing. Mendoza v Sterling Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04543, Second Dept 6-20-18

REAL ESTATE (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE,  DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/COMMITMENT LETTER (REAL ESTATE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF ENTERED AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHICH INDICATED THE AWARD WOULD BE BETWEEN $0 AND $50,000, BUT THE POLICY LIMITS WERE $100,000/300,000; THE UNILATERAL MISTAKE BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY RE: THE POLICY LIMITS WAS NOT INDUCED BY DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S CARRIER, THEREFORE RESCISSION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE.
Defense Counsel’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Setting Aside the Verdict
Filing of Article 78 Petition Itself Constituted a Demand that Respondent Perform Its Duty, the Triggering Event for the Four-Month Statute of Limitations in a Mandamus to Compel Proceeding/Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court Have Concurrent Jurisdiction Over the Administration of an Estate

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED... PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN...