Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff in this case was granted specific performance against the defendant in connection with an option to purchase the defendant's building, and that determination was affirmed by this Court. In addition, this Court remitted the case to the Supreme Court for a determination as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to attorneys' fees (see, Check-Mate Indus. v Say Assocs., 104 A.D.2d 392).
We now find that the court properly held, after a hearing, that the defendant's conduct did not warrant a departure from the general rule that attorneys' fees are not recoverable unless there is a contractual or statutory provision therefor (see, Huling v Copp, 175 A.D.2d 572; Park S. Assocs. v Essebag, 113 Misc.2d 1026, affd 126 Misc.2d 994). The plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant "contumaciously" deprived the plaintiff of its clear entitlement to legal title, forcing the plaintiff to "rescue [itself] through legal action" (Park S. Assocs. v Essebag, supra, at 1028).
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.