From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Krupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 13, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs payable by the defendant Cory Krupp, so much of the order dated September 27, 1991, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Cory Krupp which was for summary judgment, and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is vacated, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment is denied, the defendant Morton Weber Associates is directed to pay over to the plaintiffs the entire contract deposit of $45,000, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

The material facts in this case are not in dispute. On November 5, 1990, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant Cory Krupp to purchase a commercial building. The contract provided that if the plaintiffs were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment after 45 days from their receipt of a fully executed copy of the contract, either party could cancel the contract in writing, and the deposit of $45,000 would be returned. This time period was subsequently extended by mutual agreement to February 1, 1991. The plaintiffs applied for a mortgage, and an environmental assessment of the property was conducted in accordance with the proposed lender's application requirements. On or about January 28, 1991, the lender informed the plaintiffs that it required an additional environmental assessment, which would take between four to eight weeks to complete. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs were unable to obtain a commitment by February 1, 1991, they gave written notice to the defendant Cory Krupp that they were canceling the contract, and demanded return of the deposit. Since the plaintiffs were unable to secure a commitment within the specified period of time, they had a right to cancel the contract and obtain return of the deposit (see, Maldonado v Moore, 135 A.D.2d 1138; Sainato v Hormozdi, 87 A.D.2d 625). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Krupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Anderson v. Krupp

Case Details

Full title:MARK ANDERSON et al., Appellants, v. CORY KRUPP, Respondent, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 13, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 273

Citing Cases

Young v. Leger

The sales contract contains a mortgage contingency clause providing that, if defendants are unable to obtain…