You are here: / Real Estate
, , ,

REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action for specific performance and reformation of a real estate purchase contract should have been granted. However the motion to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action was properly denied. The Second Department determined the limitation of remedies in the real estate contract constituted documentary evidence justifying dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). The requirements for sufficiently pleading a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation were explained as well:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “An unambiguous contract provision may qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Here, the parties' contract, which limited the plaintiff's remedies in the event that the defendants were unable to clear defects in title, established a complete defense as a matter of law to the first and third causes of action, seeking specific performance and reformation of the contract based upon mutual mistake, respectively … . …

Where a cause of action is based on a misrepresentation or fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]). Here, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging that the defendants misrepresented that they owned 42-55 27th Street and had the right to convey it, that they made this representation despite knowing that it was false, and that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representation to his detriment. Hiu Ian Cheng v Salguero, 2018 NY Slip Op 05831, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, REAL ESTATE CONTRACT LIMITING REMEDIES CONSTITUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND REFORMATION OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS’ ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs, who had effectively taken back a mortgage on property sold to defendant, could not enforce the purchase contract which purported to declare the contract null and void and require the defendant to vacate the property upon default. Defendant, by making substantial monthly payments pursuant to the contract, had acquired equitable title to the property. Plaintiffs only available remedies are foreclosure or an action at law for the purchase price:

A rider to the [purchase] contract contained a provision providing that in the event the defendant defaulted in making payments under the contract and failed to cure, and that said default resulted in the plaintiffs' inability to pay an existing mortgage on the property, the defendant forfeited all monies paid as liquidated damages, the contract was deemed null and void, and the premises were to be vacated in good condition. * * *

“The execution of a contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a partial payment gives the contract vendee equitable title to the property” … . “[T]he vendor merely holds the legal title in trust for the vendee, subject to the vendor's equitable lien for the payment of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of the contract” … . Accordingly, the vendee under a land sale contract has acquired an interest in the property that must be extinguished before the vendor can resume possession, notwithstanding whether a provision in the contract provides that in the event of the vendee's uncured default in payment, the vendor has the right to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises… . A vendor may not enforce his rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee's equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price … .

The defendant, having executed a contract for the purchase of property from the plaintiffs, and having made substantial payments to the plaintiffs pursuant to the contract, held equitable title to the property… . Under these circumstances, upon the defendant's default in making payments under the contract, the plaintiffs could not seek relief pursuant to the provision of the rider that provided for the contract to be deemed null and void, the premises vacated, and the defendant to forfeit all monies paid as liquidated damages. The plaintiffs were required to proceed to foreclose the defendant's equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price … . Russell v Pisana, 2018 NY Slip Op 05789, Second Dept 8-15-18

FORECLOSURE (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW  (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE  (DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT PURCHASER TO FORFEIT ALL MONTHLY PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE  AND VACATE THE PROPERTY UPON DEFAULT, DEFENDANT HAD ACQUIRED EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS' ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDIES ARE TO BRING AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE OR AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE (SECOND DEPT))

,

REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission on a lease entered by defendants (Budhu and RLRC) just after defendants terminated plaintiff’s services, an action deemed to have been done in bad fact warranting recovery under an implied contract theory and in quantum meruit:

A real estate broker is entitled to recover a commission upon establishing that it (1) is duly licensed, (2) had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) was the procuring cause of the transaction … . There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a licensed brokerage firm. …

The plaintiff established that it had an implied contract to provide brokerage services for Budhu and RLRC. The plaintiff also established that it was the procuring cause of the transaction. In order to establish that it was the procuring cause of a transaction, a “broker must establish that there was a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” … . While the plaintiff was not involved in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the deal between RLRC and Hillside, it established that it created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded, and that it generated a chain of circumstances that proximately led to the transaction… . Even if the plaintiff were not the procuring cause of the transaction, it would still be entitled to recover a commission, as the evidence established that Budhu and RLRC terminated the plaintiff’s activities in bad faith and as a mere last-minute device to escape the payment of the commission … .

Moreover, even assuming that there was no contract, express or implied, between the parties, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for its services in quantum meruit in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of Budhu and RLRC … . The plaintiff established that it performed services in good faith, that Budhu and RLRC accepted the services, that it expected to be compensated therefor, and the reasonable value of the services … . Gluck & Co. Realtors, LLC v Burger King Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05668, Second Dept 8-8-18

REAL ESTATE (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/BROKER’S COMMISSION (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COMMISSION  (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a contract concerning plaintiff-broker’s entitlement to a commission was ambiguous requiring a trial. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

Crucially, an agreement can be deemed unambiguous “if the language it uses has a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion'” … .

However, a contract is ambiguous when “read as a whole, [it] fails to disclose its purpose and the parties’ intent” … , or when specific language is “susceptible of two reasonable interpretations”… . Moreover, the agreement must be read as a whole “to ensure that excessive emphasis is not placed upon particular words or phrases” … .

Stated differently, the existence of ambiguity is determined by examining ” the entire contract and consider[ing] the relation of the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed,'” with the wording viewed ” in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby'” … . And, importantly, “[i]n construing a contract, one of a court’s goals is to avoid an interpretation that would leave contractual clauses meaningless” … .

We find that the agreement here is ambiguous with regard to which parties are bound to its terms. Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v E&M Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05525, First Dept 7-26-18

CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKER’S COMMISSION, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to return of his deposit in this real estate transaction. The contract allowed the return of the deposit if plaintiff did not qualify for a mortgage within a specified period of time. Plaintiff did qualify within the allowed time. However, he subsequently lost his job and could not obtain the mortgage. Plaintiff asked for the deposit but defendant refused:

” A mortgage contingency clause is construed to create a condition precedent to the contract of sale'” … . “The purchaser is entitled to return of the down payment where the mortgage contingency clause unequivocally provides for its return upon the purchaser’s inability to obtain a mortgage commitment within the contingency period”… . “However, when the lender revokes the mortgage commitment after the contingency period has elapsed, the contractual provision relating to failure to obtain an initial commitment is inoperable, and the question becomes whether the lender’s revocation was attributable to any bad faith on the part of the purchaser”… .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the return of his down payment. He submitted evidence that he acted in good faith in obtaining a mortgage commitment, that the commitment was subject to re-verification of employment, and that the subsequent revocation of the commitment was not attributable to any bad faith on his part … . Chahalis v Roberta Ebert Irrevocable Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 05135, Second Dept 7-11-18

REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/DEPOSIT (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))/MORTGAGE COMMITMENT (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER REPRESENTED BOTH SELLERS AND BUYER WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DUAL REPRESENTATION, A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SELLERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED BY THE BROKER TO ENTER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant real estate broker, JRMR, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the sellers of real property, and whether JRMR fraudulently induced the sellers to enter the purchase agreement. Although JRMR represented the sellers, emails between JRMR and the buyer raised a question of fact whether JRMR was acting on behalf of both the buyer and the sellers without disclosing the dual representation (a breach of a fiduciary duty):

It is well settled that, “because of a broker’s fiduciary duties, he [or she] has the affirmative duty not to act for a party whose interests are adverse to those of the principal, unless he [or she] has the consent of the principal given after full knowledge of the facts . . . Accordingly, he [or she] cannot act as agent for both seller and purchaser of property in a real estate transaction” … . “Where a broker’s interests or loyalties are divided due to . . . [the] representation of multiple parties, the broker must disclose to the principal . . . the material facts illuminating the broker’s divided loyalties”… . Indeed, “[a] failure to disclose any interest tending to influence the [broker] . . . constitutes a breach of [the broker’s] fiduciary obligation and precludes [the broker] from recovering for services rendered” … . * * *

… [The sellers’] evidence raised issues of fact whether [the broker] made misrepresentations to them concerning the value of their properties and the willingness of [the buyer] to purchase different property, and whether [the broker] knew of the falsity of those statements and made them with the intent to induce [the sellers’] reliance on them. [The sellers] also submitted evidence raising triable issues of fact whether they justifiably relied on [the broker’s] misrepresentations and suffered damages as a result. Northland E., LLC v J.R. Militello Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05078, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​REAL ESTATE (THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER REPRESENTED BOTH SELLERS AND BUYER WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DUAL REPRESENTATION, A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SELLERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED BY THE BROKER TO ENTER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (REAL ESTATE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER REPRESENTED BOTH SELLERS AND BUYER WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DUAL REPRESENTATION, A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SELLERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED BY THE BROKER TO ENTER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/BROKERS (REAL ESTATE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER REPRESENTED BOTH SELLERS AND BUYER WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DUAL REPRESENTATION, A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SELLERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED BY THE BROKER TO ENTER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (REAL ESTATE, BROKERS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER REPRESENTED BOTH SELLERS AND BUYER WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DUAL REPRESENTATION, A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SELLERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED BY THE BROKER TO ENTER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant buyer failed to demonstrate the seller was not ready, willing and able to close on the time-of-the-essence date. The seller was entitled to keep the deposit. The buyer claimed that an easement-covenant addressing a three inch encroachment was an encumbrance which violated the purchase agreement. The court held that the encroachment was a “permitted exception” under the purchase agreement:

… [B]uyer claimed that seller had not been ready, willing, and able to close because the property had an easement-covenant that had not been removed and therefore seller’s representation in the contract that there would be no encumbrances on the property at closing was untrue. The easement-covenant, which allowed the subject property to encroach three inches onto neighboring property, was disclosed in a title report issued eight months prior to the scheduled closing. …

… [D]efendant buyer failed to demonstrate that it had a lawful basis for refusing to close since the easement-covenant, which benefitted the property and was evident in the title survey, was a “permitted exception” as defined in schedule 1.21 of the contract for sale. Thus, buyer materially breached the contract when it failed to appear on the time-is-of-the-essence closing date, and, under the limited amendment to the Contract of Sale, seller is entitled to retain the deposit as liquidated damages …  Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff seller is also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees for both the proceedings before Supreme Court and this Court, to be determined, as directed by the court, by a referee. 45 Renwick St., LLC v Lionbridge, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04641, First Dept 6-21-18

​REAL ESTATE (EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/PURCHASE CONTRACT (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/PERMITTED EXCEPTION (REAL ESTATE, PURCHASE CONTRACT, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY DEPOSIT (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES  (REAL ESTATE, EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT))

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))

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were unable to demonstrate that plaintiff was not able to prove whether plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close in the action for specific performance:

To prevail on a cause of action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must establish that it substantially performed its contractual obligations and was ready, willing, and able to perform its remaining obligations, that the vendor was able to convey the property, and that there was no adequate remedy at law … . Here, on that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for specific performance, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff was unable to prove one or more of the elements of its cause of action. The defendants failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff purchaser was ready, willing, and able to close on Contract One … . The defendants also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact with respect to whether they validly cancelled the contracts.

Similarly, since the defendants did not establish that they validly cancelled the contracts, they did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to a judgment declaring that the contracts are not binding and are unenforceable.

Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action for specific performance and declaring that the contracts are not binding and are unenforceable, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Chester Green Estates, LLC v Arlington Chester, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03657, Second Dept 5-23-18

​REAL ESTATE (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAL ESTATE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the ostensible president the corporation (Lowbet) which owned an apartment building, Liu, had the apparent authority to sell the building, and the buyer, 44th Street Realty, was a bona fide purchaser. Although Liu had been removed as president and replaced by petitioner, that information was not provided to the Department of State Division of Corporations:

The petitioner and Liu married in 1985 and then separated in 1995, after which the petitioner moved to China. Since 1995, Liu has run the day-to-day business of Lowbet, with the petitioner’s knowledge and consent. In August 2006, Liu was removed as president of Lowbet and the petitioner and his son were named president and vice president, respectively. However, the petitioner did not update this information with the Department of State Division of Corporations.

44th Street Realty established, prima facie, that the subject deed was only voidable, not void ab initio, since the petitioner alleged that Liu’s signature and authority to convey were acquired by fraudulent means, but did not allege that Liu’s signature was forged … .

44th Street Realty also established, prima facie, that Liu was cloaked with apparent authority to sign the deed on behalf of Lowbet. The petitioner had condoned Liu’s unfettered control and operation of the day-to-day business of Lowbet, which gave rise to the appearance that Liu possessed authority to enter into a real estate transaction on behalf of Lowbet … . Under the circumstances, 44th Street Realty’s reliance upon the appearance of Liu’s authority was reasonable … .

Further, 44th Street Realty made a prima facie showing that it was a bona fide purchaser by demonstrating that it had paid valuable consideration for the property, in good faith and without knowledge of any alleged fraud by Liu … . Real Property Law §§ 266 and 291 protect the title of a bona fide purchaser for value who lacks knowledge of fraud by the grantor or affecting the grantor’s title … . 44th Street Realty’s submissions established that it had no knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to inquire about possible fraud … . Matter of Shau Chung Hu v Lowbet Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03529, Second Dept 5-16-18

​REAL ESTATE (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (BONA FIDE PURCHASER, APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (APPARENT AUTHORITY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/APPARENT AUTHORITY (REAL ESTATE, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (SECOND DEPT))/BONA FIDE PURCHASER (REAL ESTATE,  FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (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